COMES NOW, Appellant Marc Perkel, to ask the court for a variety of things in the cases of 22947-2 and 22948-2.

On November 9^th 1999 the clerk issued a paper joining the cases together. The writing was not signed by an Article V judge, nor does there exist any written order in the file signed by and Article V judge. Therefore, the order joining these separate cases is void. The appellant does not recognize this as being an order of the court. Appellant also contends that the docket for oral arguments is in error because it schedules these two separate cases to be heard together.

The appellant contends that this court has, for all practical purposes, ruled on the issue of the requirement of judges signing orders already. This court has denied the appellants motion asking for, among other things, and order signed by a judge. Based upon this ruling and this court's own conduct, in that the judges of this court refuse to sign orders, the appellant believes that this court will decide to allow orders that don't comply with the plain language of the rules to stand. If this court thinks a second hand verbal order of a judge constitutes a valid order, then this court would likely rule that an unsigned written order is also valid. The appellant therefore contends that this court has decided that it can make rulings that are in direct conflict with bot case law and the plain language of the Rules of Court, and therefore the appellant can not get a decision from this court based upon these rules. The appellant therefore contends that this court is unfit to make a fair an impartial decision on the issue of judges signing orders that is consistent with the Missouri Rules of Court.

Case law has strongly supported denying lawyers the fruits of fraud upon the court. Rule 4.83(a) requires judges and lawyers to report professional misconduct to the appropriate authorities. However, this court consistently ignores, and the courts in this district are actively hostile towards, people like the appellant who raise the issue of fraud upon the court. In his appeal of his divorce, Perkel v. Perkel, the court trivialized fraud committed by lawyers and ruled " Furthermore, this court is not an agency charged with responsibility for investigating alleged misconduct by lawyers. Marc can present his complaints about Vicki's lawyers to the officials charged with that responsibility." This statement, in light of the fraud that occurred in obtaining this judgement, shows that this court is too comfortable in allowing attorney misconduct. Appellant contends that this court lacks the proper respect for the rules regarding the preservation of the integrity of the courts and is therefore unfit to hear a case where fraud upon the court is an issue.

After the appellant determined that this court was not in compliance with the rules regarding judges signing orders, he filed a writ of mandamus on the Missouri Supreme Court asking the court to order the judges in this court to comply with the rules. He additionally sent two email messages to a list of 3500 employees listed on the Missouri State web site as "Court Administrators". Apparently the Commission for Retirement Removal and Discipline were on this list and they launched an investigation into the matter of the judges of this court refusing to sign orders. The appellant has also been contacted by the State Auditors office who is considering an audit of all the state courts to determine if the courts are complying with the rules that require judgements and orders to be in writing and signed by a judge. The appellant contends that because his actions, as well as some of the actions of the respondent's attorneys William A. Wear and James R. Sharp, that this case has created collateral trouble for this court and that neither party can be comfortable that the decision of this court isn't tainted. The appellant therefore contends that this court can not make a decision that the public can rely on as a fair, lawful, and impartial ruling and therefore should be disqualified.

The appellant runs a single man software company where he is the only person who provides technical support. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 4^th 2000 which is just the second business day of the new year after the turn of the century. The appellant has a known Y2K issue in that one of his programs transmits an erroneous date from Novell file servers to all the workstations setting the clocks on these computers back to 1988. The appellant therefore needs to be at his office to deal with these technical support issues that could affect thousands of networked computers.

WHEREFORE, for the above stated reasons, the appellant prays for a written order, signed by an Article V judge, to disqualify this court and to transfer this case to a sister appellant court or to the Missouri Supreme Court and to make other orders to protect the rights of the litigants. The appellant also prays for a delay for oral arguments till at least two weeks after the first of the year.

___________________________________________

Marc Perkel * Appellant * 12-16-99