Make your own free website on Tripod.com
gww plz post -this is a case w/ no previous postings and confirm

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert More <anselm45@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:04:00 -0600
Subject: Fwd: evidence of judicial crime -same evidence as prior email
- from Robert J. More plz present to grand jury and provide
confimation
To: Gww1210 <Gww1210@aol.com>, tcarney@querry.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert More <anselm45@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:50:30 -0600
Subject: same evidence as prior email - from Robert J. More plz
present to grand jury and provide confimation
To: maryellen.barrett@usdoj.gov

SG-www.thirstforjustice.777host.us (SG)

2/25/10, b. 38, …… n. 16, p.1



Doc #1



Document List of  2/25/10 (“D/L 2/25/10”) in Regard to the Evidence RJM Was
Assured on 2/23/10 that Office of  the U.S. Attorney for the District
of  Massachusetts
Employee Mary Ellen Barrett Would Deliver to the District of  MA Grand Jury
Foreperson Without Delay Upon the Reception Thereof  and Without Any
Screening Function Being Performed by Any Member of  Any Branch of  the
Government Not  A Component of the Grand Jury

1.      D/L 2/25/10 (2/25/10. b 38, c. m. n.16, p.1) *X*

2.      Composite of  Evidence To Be Presented to Grand Jury Regarding the
Violations of  Provisions of  Various Federal Criminal Statutes Perpetrated
by Judge W.G. Young (2/25/10 b. 38…..n.17, p2) *X*

3.      Proposed Stipulation to USDC for Dist. of  Mass. Judge W. G. Young
of 1/20/10 (2/25/10 b. 38…..n.18, p3) *X*

4.      Docket of  Case #  *1:04-cv-11972-WGY *(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.19, p4) *X
*

5.      Memorandum of  Law Regarding Right of  Citizen Access to Grand Jury
(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.20, p5)

6.      Cover Letter of  2/25/10 (2/25/10 b. 38…..n.21, p6) *X*

7.      Verified Statement of  2/25/10 Regarding Activity of  RJM Regarding
Endeavor to Procure Criminal Conviction of  Judge W.G. Young (2/25/10 b.
38…..n.22, p7)

8.      Complaint in Case # *1:04-cv-11972-WGY *(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.23, p8) *
X*

9.      Order of  1/6/05 (2/25/10 b. 38…..n.24, p9) *X*

10.  Partial Electronic Docket for Case # *1:04-cv-11972-WGY *(2/25/10 b.
38…..n.25, p10) *X*

11.  PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”)VERIFIED MOTION OF 2/5/05…. (2/25/10 b.
38…..n.26, p11) *X*

12.  PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”)VERIFIED MOTION OF 2/9/05…. (2/25/10 b.
38…..n.27, p12) *X*

13. PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”) VERIFIED INITIAL COMPONENT OF  WHAT MAY TURN OUT
TO BE AN   OCTA, OR  NON – FURCATED  F.R. of  C.P. RULE 60(B)(1) MOTION OF
2/11/06…. (2/25/10 b.38…n.28, p13)

14. PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”) VERIFIED SECOND COMPONENT OF  WHAT…RULE 60….
(2/25/10 b.38….n.29, p14)





SG(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.21, p6)

www.thirstforjustice.777host.us (SG)



Document #6



Robert J. More  (“RJM”)

P.O. Box 6926

Chicago, IL 60680

312 545-1890

anselm45@gmail.com



Mary Ellen Barrett

Office of  the United States Attorney for Massachusetts in Boston MA

Maryellen.barrett@usdoj.gov



2/25/10



Dear Ms. Barrett,

Accompanying this cover letter is a collection of documents which pursuant
to our conversation of  2/23/10, Robert J. More (“RJM”) is respectfully
demanding that you or someone from your office deliver to the Foreperson of
whatever Federal Grand Jury is conducting activity today in the Courthouse
in which the Office of  the U.S. Attorney for MA is located as soon as you
can either print  and deliver them or otherwise transmit them to such
Foreperson.

It is the informed understanding and correlative position of  RJM that the
information and assurances provided by you on 2/23/10 to RJM concerning the
matter of  the method  presently operative regarding  the presentation
of  evidence
of violations of  Federal Law  to a Federal Grand Jury in Boston MA
(“FGJBM”), namely that such evidence would have to be presented by you who
would then present it to the Grand Jury without any screening thereof being
conducted by any representative of either the executive or judicial branch
of  the Federal Government, constituted a basis upon which RJM could justify
relying in not endeavoring to present such type evidence to the Federal
Grand Jury presently conducting activity in Boston MA (“FGJBM”), via some
method other than your receiving such and w/o delay transmitting it to such
entity.

The documents you are receiving from RJM today in the  form  in which they
presently exist must be presented to the Grand Jury immediately in order  to
prevent  Judge Young (the person responsible for the crimes alleged therein)
from  later endeavoring to claim, howsoever unjustifiably,  that any  statute
of  limitations on any given count which it is the informed understanding of
RJM needs to be charged in order to prevent the deprivation of  a measure of
consideration to which the members of  the public are entitled,  based upon
the evidence contained in  the composite of  evidence which accompanies this
document, would have run due to the fact that Judge Young issued an order on
2/24/05,  the issuance of  which is one of  the orders which RJM is claiming
constituted a federal crime.

By presenting the documents referenced herein (“2/25/10 docs”) as soon as
they are received, the FGJBM can issue a presentment this afternoon before
adjourning which will prevent Judge Young from endeavoring to evade
liability for his criminal conduct via the positing of  any SOL defense,
howsoever unjustifiable the positing of  any such defense would in any case,
be.

Notice is provided herein that RJM can be contacted any time in order to
provide any explanations which might be sought and/or to testify via phone
before the FGJBM.

If you would encounter any problems regarding the accomplishment of  the
objectives referenced herein, you may call or email RJM and indeed RJM would
have to respectfully propose that you would do so in such type scenario
without delay, so that RJM can, *inter alia*, provide any guidance which
might be needed.

For the record,  a record is being maintained of   everything that
transpires in the prosecution of  the project this letter concerns (“these
matters”).

If there are any questions needing answers regarding these matters, such can
be presented to RJM at any time, or to the Webmaster at the URL listed
herein supra.

Documents listed in the *D/L of  2/25/10*, numbered *1-, 6, 8, 9, 10-12 * will
have been  included in the email  transmission transmitted to Ms. M. Barrett
at: Maryellen.barrett@usdoj.gov before 11:30 a.m. EST on 2/25/10 and
documents numbered *5,  7, 13 *and* 14* will have been transmitted  to Ms.
Barrett at the email address listed herein supra, later in the day on
2/25/10, or on 2/26/10 and/or upon RJM’s receiving a  request/demand
therefore, the circumstances of  Divine Providence permitting, as the
assessment of  neither would be necessary in order to ensure that the FGJBM
could issue a presentment against Judge Young on 2/25/10.

Any consideration provided by you or anyone else in your office in regard to
these matters would be much appreciated, even though it would only be your
moral and legal duty to provide such. Finally, should anyone contributing to
the rectification of the injustice these matters concern, ever encounter any
type of retaliation for the contributing  thereto, the ISMA through its
members -  of which RJM is an *Associate Administrative Assistant*, would
most definitely not neglect to champion whatever cause(s) might have to be
championed in order to ensure that ISMA’s pledge to never leave any
contribution to the accomplishment of  the type of objective these matters
concerns unrequited nor any contributor of  such type contribution not as
thoroughly protected as the un-eliminable limitations of   the fallen human
condition would  permit.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More









(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.17, p2)



Document #2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS



In re: People of the United States of America

represented by Robert J. More

v

William G. Young



This document constitutes a presentation of  evidence to the Federal Grand
Jury presently assessing evidence in Boston, MA (“FGJBM”)  regarding alleged
violations of  provisions of  federal criminal statutes presently operative
in the united States of  America/United States of America, and which were
all operative in the years 2001-2007, which is being emailed to Ms. M.
Barrett on 2/25/10, so that the FGJBM can issue a *presentment *(the entity
analogous to an* indictment*  in a scenario in which the person accused of  the
commission of   a crime is a government official which a government
prosecutor might be unwilling  to prosecute out of  an unjustified interest
in not prosecuting individuals whose financial and political interests, it
might be apprehended by a given prosecutor would be more closely aligned
with the prosecutor’s own than would be  those of the individual alleging
injury in a given case from the perpetration of  a  given violation of  a
criminal statute perpetrated by a government official)  against Judge W.G.
Young before adjourning  for the day on 2/25/10.

On 1/20/10, Robert J. More mailed to Judge William G. Young  a Senior Judge
in the USDC for the District of  MA, a copy of  the document included along
with this document as document coded “2/25/10 b. 38…..n.18, p3” (“Doc. #4”
accompanying this document), which constituted a proposed stipulation
regarding the date(s) of  expiration of  various statutes of  limitations
applicable to the matters this document concerns.

RJM never received any response thereto.

The substance of  this composite of  evidence/accusation of   the
perpetration of  a federal crime (“presentation”)  is that Judge William G.
Young (“JWGY”) when considering the copy of  the complaint RJM filed in his
adjudication of  the  case # *1:04-cv-11972-WGY (“04-cv-11972”) (Doc.
#8, *“2/25/10
b. 38…..n.23, p8”) (“*complaint*”) (Document entry #3 in the  in the Doc. #
10 (partial copy of  the electronic docket maintained for 04-cv-11972) which
accompanies this document), 1. never identified any  element of any of  the
causes of action enumerated in *such complaint *which* *   would have had to
have been present therein in order for such complaint to state a cause
of  action
according to which relief could have  been granted by a federal court, as
pled on the liberal notice pleading standards applicable in federal courts
at all times applicable to the matters this presentation concerns, which was
not in fact present in such complaint in the condition in which such
complaint was filed in the USDC for the District of Massachusetts (“USDCDM”)
in 2004,

01/06/2005

7 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?7,94124,,,,,33>

Judge William G. Young : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: plaintiff's complaint
is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted and will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)
without further notice after thirty-five (35) days from the date of the
Order, unless before that time plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why
his complaint should not be dismissed for the stated reasons.(Morse,
Barbara) (Entered: 01/07/2005)

01/07/2005



Set Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiff to demonstrate good cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed by 2/10/2005. (Morse, Barbara) (Entered:
01/07/2005)

02/09/2005

8 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?8,94124,,,,,37>

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robert J. Moore. (Bell, Marie) (Entered:
02/11/2005)

02/10/2005



Judge William G. Young : Electronic ORDER entered. re
3<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3,94124,,,,,>Complaint
filed by Robert J. Moore. THE PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSION HAVING FAILED
TO INDICATE ANY REASON WHY THIS CASE OUGHT NOT BE DISMISSED, THIS ACTION IS
ORDERED DISMISSED. cc/cl. (Bell, Marie) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

02/11/2005



Civil Case Terminated. (Bell, Marie) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

02/17/2005

9 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?9,94124,,,,,44>

ADDENDUM TO RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robert J. Moore. (Bell,
Marie) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

02/24/2005



Judge William G. Young : Electronic ORDER entered. re
9<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?9,94124,,,,,>Addendum
to Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Robert J. Moore.
TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, MOTION DENIED. (Bell, Marie)
(Entered: 02/24/2005)

03/28/2005

10 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?10,94124,,,,,49>

MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Robert J. Moore.(Bell,
Marie) (Entered: 03/30/2005)



2. that,  as can be ascertained from the docket entries (“DE”) contained in
the electronic docket  (“ED”) maintained in 04-cv-11972, JWGY issued an
order on 2/24/05  (DE  between “DE #9” and “DE #10” contained in the ED)
denying  the relief sought in a document which  was filed via mailing on
2/9/05 {the response to the Order of 1/6/05 was not even due until 2/11/05,
so RJM cannot ascertain how the Court could have issued the ruling issued as
the “docket entry of 2/10/05” (DE immediately subsequent to “DE #8” in the
ED) prior to 2/11/05 without having incurred criminal liability in doing so}
as a  “Motion to Reconsider” (“MTR”) (see DE of 2/24/05  between DE’s #9 and
#10) notwithstanding that it was mailed one day before  JWGY  on 2/10/05
denied the petition (“DE #8”) in regard to which he claimed that DE #9 was a
MTR (which would have been received by the Court on 2/9/05, but for the fact
that the Court refused to provide RJM the measure of  consideration provided
licensed attorneys in the form of   permission to efile in 04-cv-11972,
which means that pursuant to federal equal protection of  laws
jurisprudence, that RJM had to be credited with  the filing the document on
the day he mailed it as persons with efiling capacity would have
electronically filed such document had they filed such document on 2/9/05) ,
thus depriving RJM and the public of  the measure of consideration
guaranteed to all litigants who file cases in the Federal Courts  by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e) (in this instance, the right to have a
“Motion to Reconsider” filed pursuant to FRCP # 59(e) adjudicated according
to a legitimate standard of   adjudication pursuant to the  provisions
guaranteed law-abiding Americans by the *Right to Petition *and* Due Process
* clauses of  the Constitution of  the u.S.A./U.S.A.), in *that RJM could
not possibly have been responding to the adverse ruling entered into the ED
on 2/11/05* (DE between DE’s #8 and #9), in documents mailed for filing on
2/9/05 (RJM had to mail all documents filed in the case since the Court
never granted RJM the consideration of electronic filing in 04-cv-11972,
notwithstanding that such consideration was one of  the forms of relief
which was sought in 04-cv-11972), since RJM had mailed such document the day
(ie 2/9/05)  before  JWGY issued an order denying the relief sought in DE #8
*via a MTR*, as RJM could not possibly have been seeking reconsideration of
an order or judgment which had not been issued and entered, respectively, as
of the date (2/9/05)  upon which RJM had mailed the document which JWGY
classified as a MTR, and 3. that JWGY issued the order which constitutes the
DE of  2/24/05 (DE between DE’s #9 and #10)  which deprived RJM and the
entirety of  the members of  the public entitled to consideration from JWGY
(and from RJM)  of  the 10 day window within to which to file a MTR pursuant
to the express provisions of  Rule 59(e), since according to the FRCP, any
period  of time of ten days or less does not include Saturdays, Sundays or
Holidays and Washington’s Birthday was celebrated in the period between
2/10/05 and 2/24/05 in the year 2005 (ie 2/21/05), which means that JWGY
could not have issued any order before 2/26/05 (15 days from the entry into
the ED on 2/11/05 of  the Order issued on 2/10/05 dismissing RJM’s case)
denying any document which could possibly have justifiably been construed to
constitute a MTR, since all time windows begin to run on the date of the
entry of  an  order into the court docket, not on the date of  the issuance
thereof  without having procured RJM’s  consent to the issuance of  any
ruling regarding any MTR which would have been filed by RJM prior to 2/26/05
and that 4. any adequate assessment of  the contents of  the documents which
RJM filed to which reference has been included herein would indicate that
RJM was seeking an extension of time within which to respond to the Order of
1/6/05 and not responding in substance to its claims except to the extent
some response had to be filed to such order by 2/11/05,  in order to prevent
the waiver, forfeiture and/or relinquishment of  any claim to consideration
to which RJM and all those entitled to consideration from RJM were and
remain entitled.

If this Honorable Grand Jury – what Justice Scalia referenced as the Fourth
Branch of  the Government in his 1993 opinion in Williams V U.S. (_U.S._)
which served as the *ratio decendi* of that case,  would conclude that JWGY
had actually read the contents of  RJM’s motions referenced herein supra at
the level of  what was an 8th grade reading level 100 years ago in America,
and then considered them at the level of  what was considered an acceptable
level of logic for  college freshmen  and an acceptable level of knowledge
of   the field of  law for a second year law student 100 years ago,  then
RJM would have to respectfully demand that this FGJBM  provide the world an
explanation of  what exactly would constitute the constituent components of
such type argument or else simply issue a presentment against Judge W. Young
subject to retraction should he succeed in   any type of   submission of
argument  to this “protective shield against oppressive government activity”
in convincing it    that the type of  argument implicitly referenced herein
actually exists.

For now, RJM complains that the activity of  JWGY described herein supra
constituted and constitutes violations of  18 USC 242 - (the deprivation of
any right guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of  the United
States of  America
(united States of America)), 18 USC 1503 – (the obstruction of  the due
administration of justice), 18 USC 1346 – (the theft of  the intangible
right to the honest services of a government office, transmitted via mail)
and possibly 18 USC 1961 et seq –(Criminal RICO), but RJM lacks the evidence
necessary to procure a presentment regarding any possible RICO violation(s)
at this juncture and as a member of  “We the People” D.C. v Heller  (_U.S._)
et al that this FGJBM on 2/25/10 issue a presentment against JWGY or
otherwise provide whatever relief it would have to provide to ensure that no
crime the prosecution for which this FGJBM would be responsible would go
unpunished and that no measure  of  innocence this document concerns would
be in any way unjustifiably injured, before it adjourns for the day on
2/25/10.

Wherefore, RJM herein moves this Grand Jury to issue a presentment on
2/25/10 before it adjourns for the day.

Robert J. More Jn. 2:15, MC Clause 61, Rom. 12:21, Papal Christmas Message
of  1956









(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.18, p3)



Doc. #3

SG-www.thirstforjustice.777host.us (SG)

1/20/10, b. 38, …… n. 26, p.1

Robert J. More  (“RJM”)

P.O. Box 6926

Chicago, IL 60680

312 545-1890

anselm45@gmail.com



In re: *1:04-cv-11972-WGY*




1/20/10

Judge Young,



On 2/24/10, the five year statute of limitations for violations of  18 USC
242,  1346 and,1503, if not extended, will have run for any violations of
any of these criminal statutes perpetrated before 2/25/05, in any
circumstances in which any violation of such statutes would not  have been
ongoing.

If is the informed understanding of RJM that you have incurred  criminal
liability for violations of  all three statutes in your adjudication of  the
case whose case number is listed herein supra  (“*04-cv-11972”)*. RJM in no
way concedes that the crimes RJM understands were perpetrated which this
letter concerns were not ongoing through at least 2/13/06 – the date of  the
mailing of  the  “Initial Component of a …Rule 60(b) Motion” to this Court.

At this time RJM intends to present evidence to a grand jury in the District
of  MA pursuant to the argument contained in the document posted online
here: www.thirstforjustice.777host.us (obamgjmem9-15-09) (a letter or  2 may
be missing from the parenthetical construction),  seeking to procure a
presentment  therefrom in regard to your adjudication of

*04-cv-11972. To accomplish such objective, RJM anticipates having to
procure a declaratory judgment/injunction via which to prevent the positing
of  any interference with the transmission of  the evidence RJM is committed
to present to such entity.*

*RJM would not see how it would be justified for RJM to not mail a complaint
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in this regard by 2/1/10. *

*Therefore, notice is herein provided that if  RJM receives notice that this
court has stipulated that it would be the position of  this Court that  no
statute of  limitations regarding any activity of  this Court in regard to
the adjudication of  04-cv-11972 could possibly be considered to have
expired before 2/13/11, RJM will no longer have to file any complaint at
this time in order to get such evidence presented to a grand jury  at this
time, and thus will not file such type complaint, as RJM presently has two
cases pending before the SCOTUS regarding this issue already. *

*Such notice can be provided by phone, email or the mailing of  any
stipulation this Court might compose and sign, provided that in a scenario
in which such type notice would be provided by phone or email, a written
stipulation  regarding the matter(s) this letter concerns  would be received
by RJM no later than 2/15/10.*

*The circumstances of  Providence permitting, RJM may transmit a letter with
the entirety of the documents listed in the Document List which accompanies
this letter accompanying it  by 1/30/10 to this Court, but in any case, a
letter to this Court and the  entirety of  such documents  are supposed to
be posted to the URL listed herein by 1/29/10, at the latest.*

*Continuing to Endeavor to Help, Even if Admittedly in Only a Very Small
Measure to Bear  the Burdens of  His Majesty, Christus Rex*

*Robert J. More *











(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.23, p8)



Doc #8







UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

            V
Case No.

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   Agent John Doe, Agent Jane Doe, David London,

   Stock Generation Ltd,    John Doe, Jane Doe

   Defendants



VERIFIED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION: 1.                        This is a complaint stating causes
of action against the Defendant United States Securities And Exchange
Commission (“SEC”) and various individual Defendants on several  bases
including civil RICO (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.), conversion, fraud, 42 U.S.C.
1983 - violation of  constitutionally protected rights under the color of
law and pretext of legitimacy, 42 U.S.C 1985 (2), and possibly several other
claims including a possible Civil False Claims
Act count  and  a possible Federal Tort Claims Act count; and against
Defendant Stock Generation Ltd (“SG”) and various individual SG Defendants  for
civil RICO, conversion, fraud,  and various other claims to be completely
enumerated and whose particulars will be fully explicated at a later date as
circumstances permit. 2.                        On 8/8/04, the
Plaintiff  (”RJM”)
did  mail to this Court a copy of  the document whose caption and title are
herein included infra:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

In re:



Securities and Exchange Commissionjj



V                                                                  Case No.
00-11141-GAO



Stock Generation Ltd et al



Petitioner Robert J. More’s (“RJM”) Initial,  Preliminary, Inchoate,
Condensed, Verified Petition To Obtain Review Of Decision Issued By  The
United States Securities And Exchange Commision  (“SEC”) To Reject His  Claim
For Recovery Of  The $4475.99 He Had Possessed in Stock Generation Golden
Nuggets  (“SGGN”) Acccount No. 0463353664, Obtain An Order Requiring The SEC
To Compensate RJM Adequately For All Losses Its Activity Has Caused RJM,  To
Issue An Order Requiring the Court Clerk To Accept Electronic Filings From
RJM In Regard To Any And All Document(s) Which RJM May Have To File In This
Case In The Future And For Such Other Forms Of  Relief As Are Contained In
The Prayer For Relief Contained In This Petition

3.                                    Subequently he received a message from
Judge O’Toole’s clerk that the Court would not accept such document for
filing.

4.                                    RJM repeatedly left messages for both
of  the Judge’s clerks between the time he was notified of  the clerk’s
position that it would not accept RJM’s Petition and 8/30/04  explaining
that RJM had filed exactly what the SEC had informed him he had to file to
challenge whatever decision had resulted in RJM’s name not having been
included among the claimants and that the clerk was obliged to accept such
filing.

5.                                    On 9/3/04, RJM was informed by Clerk  M.
Barrett that RJM had to speak to a Ms. Genes to resolve the matter of  RJM’s
claim to have his Petition reviewed by the Court.

6.                                    Ms. Genes was on vacation on 9/3/04
and RJM did not succeed in speaking with M. Barrett when he called him later
in the afternoon.

7.                                    So as to cover his moral  and legal
liability in regard to the matter of  the money RJM lost due to the closing
down of  SG by the SEC, RJM herein files this complaint against both
entities and various individual Defendants.

8.                                    Since RJM has a sprained wrist and has
great difficulty typing, this Complaint is being composed and will be filed
in the most condensed form that the notice pleading requirements of  the
federal courts permit.

9.                                    RJM will augment it as it occurs to
RJM it is necessary  for purposes of  RJM’s retention of  the claims this
Complaint regards, to augment it, as developments unfold;  but given all of
the matters relevant to the filing of  this Complaint which RJM had to
consider in filing it, the filing of  this Super-condensed Complaint is as
much as RJM was confident he could justify doing at this juncture.

10.                                There is simply no reason that RJM should
have ever had to go to any expense in regard to obtaining the money he
invested in Stock Generation and it is RJM’s position that either SG or the
U.S. ought have to compensate RJM for every expense he ever incurs in the
recovery of  that money.

11.                                RJM may add criminal complaints against
any and/or all of  the named Defendants and/or any Defendants that are later
added to the case.

12.                                This Complaint had to be filed in its
present form to prevent the expiring of  what one or more Defendants might
later claim, howsoever unjustifiably, would constitute the statute of
limitations
on any given count contained in this Complaint or later amendments thereto
and it has been filed under duress, hardship and the practical impossibility
of  RJM’s having completed it in any more complete a form than what is
herein being filed.



JURISDICTION

12. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under; 28 U.S.C.  1331, 1337,
1343, and 1367(a); 42 U.S.C 1983, 1985 & 1988; and 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and
various other statutes which will be fully enumerated in future amended
complaints that will be filed in this case, if  the Defendants do not agree
to settle it. .



VENUE

13. This Court seems to RJM to be the only logical venue in which to file
this case according to the reasoning of  F. R. of  C. P. 42, which addresses
the issues of  judicial economy and conservation of  scarce resources, since
the SEC’s case against SG  was prosecuted here.



PARTIES

14. The United States Securities And Exchange Commission is  a federal
agency subject

to prosecution for  the torts and crimes committed under the color of  its
authority.

15. Agents John Doe and  Jane Doe, represent Defendants to be sued in the
case after the names of all Defendants are obtained in discovery.

15.                                      Defendant  David London is a staff
attorney for the SEC.

16.                                      Defendant    Stock Generation Ltd,
is the entity from Dominica West Indies which never returned the kestimated
$9,000.00 that RJM invested in it in 1999.

17. Defendants   John Doe and  Jane Doe represent Defendants to be sued in
the case        after the names of all Defendants are obtained in discovery.




FACTS

17.                                      RJM transferred somewhere around
$9,000.00 to Stock Generation Ltd in September of  1999.

18.                                      Sometime in the Spring of  2000,
RJM learned that SG had been closed down.

19.                                      RJM later contacted the SEC to
acquire information regarding what RJM had to do to obtain the money he had
transferred to SG in 1999.

20.                                      RJM received confirmations from Mr.
David London that he need do nothing to recover what he had invested and
lost and that no intervention into the case would be permitted as it was the
SEC’s position that the interest of  those damaged by the closing of  SG
would be fully protected by the SEC.

21.                                      RJM relied on this conveyance of
information from Mr. London and continued to wait for word of  what was
being done in the case.

22.                                      At various junctures, RJM contacted
Mr. London and was on such occasions  apprised of  progress in the
prosecution of  the case.

23.                                      Sometime in early 2004, RJM
communicated with Mr. London again and on such occasion was informed that
RJM was not included in the list of  those designated to be made whole for
losses incurred by the SEC’s closing of  SG.

24.                                      Since that juncture, RJM has
continued to research the various legal aspects of  the matters this
Complaint addresses and to implement the measures at any given juncture
evidently needing implementation in order for RJM to retain a morally
legitimate claim to do whatever has to be done within the limits of  the
moral law to ensure that no injustice at any time committed and/or present
in the matters this Complaint addresses (“these matters”) ultimately remains
unrectified.

25.                                      Recent developments in these
matters have been enumerated supra.



CLAIMS

Count I Civil RICO – SEC et al

26.                                      On the notice pleading standard,
RJM puts the SEC and its individual Defendant representatives (“SEC et al”)
on notice, that according to the understanding of  RJM in regard to these
matters, that all of  the elements of  a civil RICO count for which such
Defendants are liable are present in this case.

Wherefore, RJM moves this Honorable Court to grant judgment in favor of  RJM
in the amount of  $9000.00. plus pre and post- judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys fees, plus treble damages and whatever costs will have
been incurred by RJM in the filing of  this suit against the SEC et al.

Count II Conversion – SEC et al

27. On the notice pleading standard, RJM puts the SEC and its individual
Defendant representatives (“SEC et al”) on notice, that according to the
understanding of  RJM in regard to these matters, that all of  the elements
of  a conversion count for which such Defendants are liable are present in
this case.

Wherefore, RJM moves this Honorable Court to grant judgment in favor of  RJM
in the amount of  $9000.00. plus pre and post- judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys fees, plus whatever costs will have been incurred by
RJM in the filing of  this suit against the SEC et al.

Count III Fraud- SEC et al

28.                                On the notice pleading standard, RJM puts
the SEC and its individual Defendant representatives (“SEC et al”) on
notice, that according to the understanding of  RJM in regard to these
matters, that all of  the elements of  a fraud count for which such
Defendants are liable are present in this case.

Wherefore, RJM moves this Honorable Court to grant judgment in favor of  RJM
in the amount of  $9000.00. plus pre and post- judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys fees, plus treble damages and whatever costs will have
been incurred by RJM in the filing of  this suit against the SEC et al.

Counts IV-VII

To be added later.

Counts VIII Civil RICO – SG et al



29.                                On the notice pleading standard, RJM puts
SG Ltd and its individual Defendant representatives (“SG et al”) on notice,
that according to the understanding of  RJM in regard to these matters, that
all of  the elements of  a civil RICO count for which such Defendants are
liable are present in this case.

Wherefore, RJM moves this Honorable Court to grant judgment in favor of  RJM
in the amount of  $9000.00. plus pre and post- judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys fees, plus treble damages and whatever costs will have
been incurred by RJM in the filing of  this suit against the SG et al.

Count IX Conversion – SG et al

30. On the notice pleading standard, RJM puts SG and its individual
Defendant representatives (“SG et al”) on notice, that according to the
understanding of  RJM in regard to these matters, that all of  the elements
of  a conversion count for which such Defendants are liable are present in
this case.

Wherefore, RJM moves this Honorable Court to grant judgment in favor of  RJM
in the amount of  $9000.00. plus pre and post- judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys fees, plus whatever costs will have been incurred by
RJM in the filing of  this suit against the SG et al.

Count X – Fraud – SG et al

31.                                On the notice pleading standard, RJM puts
SG and its individual Defendant representatives (“SG et al”) on notice, that
according to the understanding of  RJM in regard to these matters, that all
of  the elements of  a fraud count for which such Defendants are liable are
present in this case.

Wherefore, RJM moves this Honorable Court to grant judgment in favor of  RJM
in thejj amount of  $9000.00. plus pre and post- judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys fees, plus treble damages and whatever costs will have
been incurred by RJM in the filing of  this suit against the SG et al.

Counts XI- XV

To be added later

Counts XV ….. – criminal charges and petitions for declaratory and
injunctive relief to be added later.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demand trial by jury.

I aver to the  substantial truthfulness of all factual averments contained
herein.

____________

Robert J. More





(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.24, p9)



Doc #9





UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ROBERT J. MORE, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )                            C.A. No. 04-11972-WGY

)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE )

COMMISSION, et al., )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff is advised

that his complaint is subject to summary dismissal and shall

be dismissed unless plaintiff demonstrates good cause why his

complaint should not be dismissed.

REVIEW

Because plaintiff has moved to file without prepayment of

fees, a summons has not issued in order to allow a preliminary

review of plaintiff's complaint to see that it satisfies the

requirements of the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28

U.S.C. § 1915.

Section 1915 of title 28 authorizes federal courts to

dismiss actions in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed without

prepayment of fees if the action lacks an arguable basis

either in law or in fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

385 (1989), or if the action fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief against a

defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:04-cv-11972-WGY Document 7 Filed 01/06/2005 Page 1 of 3

2

1915(e)(2). An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed

sua sponte and without notice under Section 1915 if the claim

is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual

allegations that are clearly baseless. Id.; Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 38-33 (1992).

DISCUSSION

On September 8, 2004, plaintiff Robert More of Chicago,

Illinois, filed his pro se complaint asserting civil rights and

RICO claims against the SEC, an SEC staff attorney, Stock

Generation, Ltd., and several attorneys identified as John and

Jane Does complaining, among other things, that the SEC failed

to include plaintiff's claim in the securities fraud case they

brought against SG Limited. See Complaint. Plaintiff seeks

compensation for his $9,000 stock loss. Id.k

This complaint fails to state a cause of action against

any of the named defendants. More has no private right of

action against the SEC for the acts complained of nor is London

liable for any statements he made which may have lulled More

into failing to protect his rights. Perhaps Stock Generation,

Ltd., might be liable to More in this Court for some violation

of the Securities laws, but the elements of such a claim are no

where set forth in this complaint.

CONCLUSION

Case 1:04-cv-11972-WGY Document 7 Filed 01/06/2005 Page 2 of 3

3

Based upon the foregoing, plaintiff's complaint is subject

to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted and will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2) without further notice after thirty-five (35) days

from the date of the accompanying Order, unless before that

time plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why his complaint

should not be dismissed for the reasons stated above.

SO ORDERED.

Dated at Boston, Massachusetts, this 6th day of January, 2005.

/s/ William G. Young

WILLIAM G. YOUNG

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE



(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.25, p10)





Doc #10



kk CLOSED



*  United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Boston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-11972-WGY*


Moore v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission et al
Assigned to: Judge William G. Young
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act


Date Filed: 09/08/2004
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Jurisdiction: Federal Question



*Plaintiff*



*Robert J. Moore*

represented by

*Robert J. Moore*
2008 S. Blue Island Rd.
Chicago, IL 60608
312-455-8385
PRO SE








V.





*Defendant*





*United States Securities and Exchange Commission*











*Defendant*





*Agent John Doe*











*Defendant*





*Agent Jane Doe*











*Defendant*





*David London*











*Defendant*





*Stock Generation Ltd.*











*Defendant*





*John Doe*











*Defendant*





*Jane Doe*













*Date Filed*

*#*

*Docket Text*

09/08/2004

1 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?1,94124,,,,,12>

Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Robert J. Moore and
Financial Affidavit.(Jenness, Susan) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

09/08/2004

2 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?2,94124,,,,,14>

NOTICE of Appearance by Robert J. Moore (Jenness, Susan) (Entered:
09/13/2004)

09/08/2004

3 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3,94124,,,,,16>

COMPLAINT Filing fee: $ 0.00, receipt number 0.00, filed by Robert J.
Moore.(Jenness, Susan) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

09/08/2004



If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case
to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge
Alexander. (Jenness, Susan) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

09/13/2004



Case undergoing preliminary screening (Jenness, Susan) (Entered: 09/13/2004)

09/27/2004

4 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?4,94124,,,,,22>

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered denying
1<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?1,94124,,,,,>Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice. Plaintiff
shall either file a new application to proceed without prepayment of fees or
pay the $150.00 filing fee within 35 days or this action shall be dismissed
without prejudice. The Clerk shall send plaintiff with a copy of this Order
a new application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidavit.
(Weissman, Linn) (Entered: 09/30/2004)

09/27/2004



Set Deadlines/Hearings: Payment of filing fee or submission of new
application to proceed without prepayment of fees and affidvit due by
11/1/2004. (Weissman, Linn) (Entered: 09/30/2004)

11/05/2004

5 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?5,94124,,,,,26>

MOTION To Electronically File by Robert J. Moore.(Bell, Marie) (Entered:
11/12/2004)

11/05/2004

6 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?6,94124,,,,,28>

MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Robert J. Moore.(Bell,
Marie) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

11/09/2004



Judge William G. Young : ELECTRONICALLY ORDER entered re:
5<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?5,94124,,,,,>Motion
to Electronically File Pleadings and
6 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?6,94124,,,,,> Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. THE MOTION TO SUBMIT APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PRE-PAYMENT OF FEES IS ALLOWED. THE MOTION TO FILE PLEADINGS
ELECTRONICALLY IS DENIED. cc/cl. (Bell, Marie) (Entered: 11/12/2004)

01/06/2005

7 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?7,94124,,,,,33>

Judge William G. Young : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: plaintiff's complaint
is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted and will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)
without further notice after thirty-five (35) days from the date of the
Order, unless before that time plaintiff shows good cause, in writing, why
his complaint should not be dismissed for the stated reasons.(Morse,
Barbara) (Entered: 01/07/2005)

01/07/2005



Set Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiff to demonstrate good cause why the
complaint should not be dismissed by 2/10/2005. (Morse, Barbara) (Entered:
01/07/2005)

02/09/2005

8 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?8,94124,,,,,37>

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robert J. Moore. (Bell, Marie) (Entered:
02/11/2005)

02/10/2005



Judge William G. Young : Electronic ORDER entered. re
3<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3,94124,,,,,>Complaint
filed by Robert J. Moore. THE PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSION HAVING FAILED
TO INDICATE ANY REASON WHY THIS CASE OUGHT NOT BE DISMISSED, THIS ACTION IS
ORDERED DISMISSED. cc/cl. (Bell, Marie) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

02/11/2005



Civil Case Terminated. (Bell, Marie) (Entered: 02/11/2005)

02/17/2005

9 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?9,94124,,,,,44>

ADDENDUM TO RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Robert J. Moore. (Bell,
Marie) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

02/24/2005



Judge William G. Young : Electronic ORDER entered. re
9<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?9,94124,,,,,>Addendum
to Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Robert J. Moore.
TREATED AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, MOTION DENIED. (Bell, Marie)
(Entered: 02/24/2005)

03/28/2005

10 <https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?10,94124,,,,,49>

MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by Robert J. Moore.(Bell,
Marie) (Entered: 03/30/2005)

04/06/2005



Judge William G. Young : Electronic ORDER entered granting
10<https://ecf.mad.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?10,94124,,,,,>Motion
for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. cc/cl. (Bell, Marie) (Entered:
04/06/2005)


------------------------------

*PACER Service Center***

*Transaction Receipt***

















02/12/2006 22:44:35

*PACER Login:***

tm0904

*Client Code:***



*Description:***

Docket Report

*Search Criteria:***

1:04-cv-11972-WGY

*Billable Pages:***

2

*Cost:***

0.16







(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.26, p11)



Doc #11



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

            V
Case No. 04-11972 WGY

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   et al.,

   Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”)VERIFIED MOTION OF 2/5/05 FILED UNDER PROTEST, IN
WHICH HE SEEKS   TO HAVE THIS COURT; 1. SUMMARILY STRIKE ITS ORDER OF  1/6/05,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE  JUSTIFY NOT DOING SO ACCORDING TO A NONCOUNTERFEIT
STANDARD AND IN SUCH SCENARIO, THEN GRANT  AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH
RJM MIGHT DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE AS TO WHY THE COURT COULD NOT POSSIBLY
JUSTIFY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED IN THIS CASE, AT THIS JUNCTURE, 2.
APPOINT   COUNSEL  AT THIS TIIME, 3. TO GRANT LEAVE FOR RJM TO: a.) FILE
ONLY ONE COPY OF  THIS DOCUMENT,  b.)  FILE ALL FUTURE DOCUMENTS
ELECTRONICALLY, c.)  AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND d.) REMIT ONE DOLLAR TO THE
CLERK TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF  THIS CASE e.) EITHER HAVE ALL DOCUMENTS
INCLUDED IN U.S.D.C. of  MA, CASE NO. 04-11972 WGY TRANSMITTED TO RJM
WITHOUT DELAY OR ELSE TO ISSUE AN ORDER ENABLING RJM TO ACCESS THEM ON THE
RACER SYSTEM WITHOUT COST,  OR  TO ISSUE SOME OTHER FORM OF RELIEF WHICH
WOULD ENABLE RJM TO ACCESS THE DOCUMENTS HE WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE
COMPLAINT AND FOR EACH AND EVERY OTHER FORM OF  RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE PRAYER
FOR RELIEF INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION

Now comes  the Protagonist-Plaintiff, RJM,  (“RJM”) to respectfully move
this Court  to read the entirety of  the contents of  this document, and
then summarily strike its order  issued on   1/6/05 in this case or else to
provide a confirmation under penalty of  perjury that he has read every
document to which reference is included in this motion and then
provide  findings
of  fact and conclusions of  law  in support of  a refusal to so strike that
order and grant RJM a telephonic hearing in order to preserve the issue of  his
not having done so, and then  grant RJM  an extension of time of  35 days
from 2/10/05 or  the date upon which such hearing would be conducted,
whichever would be later, within which to file what would constitute
his *preliminary
documents to be filed in this case*, to include amongst other petitions,, a
petition therein for a declaratory judgment that the U.S. will have to
compensate RJM for all expenses (including time consumed) incurred by RJM  in
the prosecution of  the case this document concerns, in the scenario in
which RJM would prevail in the case (ie 3/24/05 or some later date), and 35
days from that date within which to file both a motion to recuse this Court
(if  the conduct of the Court would not have been conducted on the
protective side of  the protective/predatory fault line to that juncture)  and
then (either) file an amended complaint and/or a  document demonstrating
good cause as to why this Court could not dismiss the complaint filed in the
case this document concerns (“complaint” and “this case” respectively)  without
in so doing, incurring tort liability and felony liability under the
provisions of among other sections of  Title 18  of  the U.S. Code, those of
3, 4, 242, 1503, 1961 and possibly 2381, for leave to file all documents in
this case via electronic filing from this point onward,  and for appointment
of  counsel;  for leave to remit $1 to the Court Clerk to defray filing
costs, and in the scenario in which this Court would not summarily grant  each
and all of  the forms of  relief herein enumerated, RJM  would seek  that  the
Court set a briefing and hearing schedule regarding the issue of  whether
there would have been any legitimate basis upon which the Court could have
refused to provide such relief  in regard to each separate item of  relief
sought, and in the scenario in which the Court would refuse to provide such
schedule, RJM would petition it to establish a similar schedule in regard to
the refusal to provide either such schedule or  some other alternative form
of relief that would enable RJM to  ensure the preservation of  all
legitimate claims, regardless of  whatever occurs in any judicial proceeding
conducted in regard to this case, so that it could never be justifiably
claimed that  any non-provision  of  any constitutionally protected measure
of  consideration such as procedural (or substantive) due process of  law,
or access to the courts under the *First Amendment Petition Clause* - which
this Court is gravely obliged to provide to all citizens who continue to
voluntarily abstain from the utilization of  the means with which God has
equipped them (ie what can be identified to constitute in a given case
(WCBITCIAGC”) the *non-excessive and otherwise under the circumstances
present in a given scenario, not-unjustified,* *use of force *(“NENOUUF”) to
discharge the duties incumbent upon all able-bodied persons to satisfy the
requirements of  among other of  the Ten Commandments, those of  the Fourth,
Fifth,  and Seventh,   to contribute to the protection of  ones’ own  property,
liberty, safety, health, morals and life and that  of   the other members of
society (above all, by ensuring that exercises of  government authority are
never exercised outside of  what WCBITCIAGC the acceptable limits within
which such authority, in  a given case, may and must, be, exercised, with
impunity) -  that would ever occur and/or be present in regard to the
adjudication of  this case,   could be imputed to any non, mis or
malfeasance on RJM’s part and for the provision of  findings of  fact and
conclusions of law in regard to any petition for relief ever denied, that
would not in a given case, or any case, be inadequate in terms of  the
addressing of  the facts of  significance  in a particular matter in
sufficient particularity to ensure that justice would not be left undone in
regard to the comparative complexity of  (a) given matter(s) in issue, and
citations to authority that would demonstrate what in RJM’s reliance in a
given matter on case precedents, statutes, constitutional principles,
equitable principles and/or defined rules of  moral theology would have been
unjustified, in consideration of  other suchlike precedents, statutes,
principles, and rules as RJM would succeed in demonstrating how such
reliance in a given case would have controlled his conduct, and in the
scenario in which none of  the above would be provided, for the Court to at
least provide a confirmation that it has been informed that something
analogous to an *offer of  proof*   in regard to each and every document
that RJM would have provided in regard to  a given matter, had  the activity
of  the Court not prevented him from providing such in a given instance (ie
via the denial of  a given petition for relief), will be provided by a
designated definite date, barring some development which would disable RJM,
that any and all confirmations be provided under penalty of  perjury, and in
support and explanation whereof, RJM avers as follows:

1.      On 1/30/05, RJM finally received  a copy of  an order issued in this
case on 1/6/05, demanding that RJM show cause as to why the case ought not
be dismissed.

2.      RJM’s landlord, in gross contravention of  local ordinances, state
statutes and the provisions of  42 USC 3601 et seq, has been endeavoring to
evict RJM from his place of residence since 11/28/04, which has resulted in
real hardship and considerable expense to RJM, not the least of  which is
that RJM did not receive a copy of  such order until 24 days after it had
been issued.

3.      RJM finds it now necessary to move this Court to read the entirety
of  this document and the attached “Exhibit A” and strike its order of  1/6/05
or else justify not striking it, providing RJM an opportunity to respond to
such development and then  grant extension(s) of time within which RJM can
respond to the Court’s order of  1/6/05 itself .

4.      RJM is still heavily burdened by  the attempted eviction, and
several other distressing legal problems that  are the  type of afflictions
with which  common burden-bearers such as RJM have become all-too-familiar
in this decayed society especially given the conditions in which all but the
atypical courts are found to be (cf. 5th C.C.A. Judge E. Jones, *The
American Judicial System is  Corrupt Beyond All Recognition*, and  N.J.
S.Ct. Judge A. Napolitano *Constitutional Chaos*, and too many other
treatments of  the topic to even begin to list them all here) .

5.       Truly, RJM has come to understand the words of  Pope Pius XII, in
the marrow of his bones, “The inversion of  means and ends by which the
value of an ultimate end is given to that which is only a means for
accomplishing it and by which human persons  are treated as mere means to an
end, engenders unjust social structures, which render Christian conduct in
keeping with the commandments of  the Divine law giver, difficult and almost
impossible.” (Address at Pentecost, June 1, 1941).

6.       Notwithstanding the *not-so-convincing* tone, tenor and contents of
the document of  1/6/05, the Judge to whom this document is addressed may be
a bastion of competence, wisdom and rectitude, such is not the typical judge
in America at this time.

7.      RJM apologizes for the tone of resentment that may infect this
motion, but RJM really resents the mis and mal-feasance of  the SEC that has
resulted in this case having to have been filed in the first place, and did
not initially realize that this Court may never have read any of  the
documents which RJM endeavored to file in U.S.D.C. of  Mass, Case No.
04-11972 WGY (“04-11972”), and may not have a clear idea of  the specifics
that lead  RJM to file the complaint in this case. RJM herein proposes that
this Cokurt obtain copies of  such documents and read them if it has not
already.

8.      There is no way that RJM can possibly get even all of   the
procedural and preliminary  issues he needs to present to this Court in
regard to the litigation of  this case in preparation for a possible adverse
ruling on the equivalent of  a response to a  dispositive motion (ie RJM’s
explanation of good cause to prevent dismissal), adequately presented in
their constitutional dimension(s) in order to preserve all such issues for
further review, presented to it  by 2/10/05.

9.      If the order of 1/6/05 is now stricken, RJM might never have to
raise such issues

10.  Corresponding to the duty to which RJM is subject, to help keep all
exercises of  government authority within acceptable limits, is of course, a
right to superimpose whatever structure need be imposed in a given instance
into a given proceeding in order to ensure that any exercises thereof are
kept therein.

11.  RJM can commit, barring  the incurment of some disabling adversity to
get  all procedurals and preliminaries presented to the Court by 3/24/05 or
at least within 35 days of  whatever date it would be upon which RJM would
be provided a hearing in which to object to the Court’s not now striking its
own order, if it will not now do so; provided he is permitted to file them
electronically or post them on a website in lieu of  filing.

12.  RJM has been driven into poverty by the types of  activity this  document
concerns and can only print 10 pages of  documents per day at the local
library and cannot even afford postage costs, so he can only file one copy
of  any documents he files.

13.   *The defendant takes the plaintiff as he finds him *(or makes him) and
*the public is entitled to every man’s evidence,* especially regarding govt.
predations such as this case concerns.

14.  RJM does not now have time to address the merits of  his arguments
against the complaint being dismissed,  and should not have to until he is
provided both the opportunity to file all documents electronically and to
have counsel appointed.

15.  Without access to the documents on file in 04-11972, RJM would not even
know how this Court could justify not staying the proceedings in this case
until RJM is provided access to those documents, without which such access,
RJM would not know how he could amend the complaint. So RJM must also move
the Court to stay the case until such access is provided.

16.  In regard to whatever  petitions contained in this motion that might
ever be  denied, RJM must preserve such for further review by presenting
foundations to his objections to any denial issued and then obtaining either
rulings on a given objection or a refusal to rule thereupon, so that RJM can
then present a given claim to be certified for appeal.

17.  The issues at stake in this case, a precursory consideration of  which
can be obtained by the consideration of  the claims contained in the
accompanying “Exhibit A” – a motion filed in the case (ie.04-11972),  into
which RJM was prevented from intervening and in regard to which RJM was
never provided review of  whatever decisions resulted in  his being excluded
from it  which exclusion in turn so wholely unjustifiably  prevented RJM
from receiving   the funds he had invested in Stock Generation (“SG”), are
of  staggering public and societal importance, beginning  with that of  with
whether the government can in effect simply confiscate private property
without providing any hearing in regard to a given confiscation, and after
having conveyed information to the owners thereof  which would have falsely
led them to believe that their legitimate interests were not being left
unprotected by  a given government action.

18.  The public is entitled to have this Court require the S.E.C. to either
return its ill-begotten gains – the money it has taken from SG, and to
require SG to do likewise, to those who have lost money in the events this
complaint concerns or to have to (an) provide explanation(s) as to why no
such remission of  funds would not be required to defeat the ends of
injustice in these matters.

19.  RJM is a Non-counterfeit Catholic and the money in issue has already
been designated to the spiritual and corporal works of mercy of  the True
Catholic Church.

20.  The Court is obliged to consider the matter of  the legitimacy of  a
pro se complaint under the principles promulgated in the precedents of  Conley
v Gibson  (_______U.S.________) and Haines v Kerner (_________U.S.________),
the consideration that the federal courts only require notice pleading and
that RJM completed a complaint that never would have had to have been
completed  at all, but for the presumptive mis and mal-feasance of  actors
(ie.  S.E.C. actors), whose activity is conducted under the color of  law
and pretext of legitimacy (making it far more dangerous than private actor
tortious  and criminal activity),  and whose salaries RJM is burdened with
helping  to pay,  with torn ligaments in his wrist (it was in a full length
cast for six weeks (see comp. par. #6)), rendering him able to type with
only one hand, none of which matters were even addressed in the “Memorandum
and Order” of 1/6/05 (“Order”).

21.  RJM possesses a constitutionally protected right to raise and if
necessary,
seek certification for appeal, of  as many issues as he would understand it
was necessary to present in these matters and the non-provision of   adequate
consideration by this Court in regard to such right, would render any
adverse decision issued in this case, void ab initio and of  no force and
effect, besides incurring for any court that would act suchlike both tort
and criminal liability.

22.  RJM is overwhelmed with the type of  problems burden-bearers encounter
when predatory entities such as the S.E.C. in this case cannibalize them,
under the pretext of protecting their interests and can write no more now
without risking not getting this motion mailed in time to get it to Boston
by 2/10/05.

23.  RJM’s right to the funds at issue in this case is so clear  and free
from doubt, that he would move for judgment on the pleadings against both
Defendants, except for the fact neither has been served, and will so move
once he  has received the documents without which he does not see how he can
amend the complaint.

24.  RJM acknowledges that the whole issue of   the subterfuge of  sovereign
immunity and the incalculable damage it has caused to the social order  is
one that burden-bearers in this Country can no longer justify leaving
unrectified – as it has been used as a license to defraud,  pillage,
plunder,  and cannibalize the populace, leaving nothing but devastation and
ruin in its tragic wake.

25.  This whole motion is filed under protest that RJM and his fellow
burden-bearers  cannot simply rectify the injustices perpetrated upon him
(them) on  (his) (their) own accord, but rather are constrained by the
provisions of  criminal laws from doing so, upon the presumption that there
are forums maintained for purposes of  the resolution of  such claims   on
the merits thereof, that render vigilantism unjustified  and illegal.

26.  RJM cannot see how anyone could possibly claim that conditions in this
Country, at this time, for burden-bearers  are not substantially worse than
were those in Massachusetts in 1775.

27.  Just remedying the unjustified injuries, unjustified  govt activity
causes  is an all-consuming endeavor, and it is RJM’s position that
accessing courts is  too expensive an alternative at this juncture for
burden-bearers as a means by which to remedy harms and rectify injustices,
given the alternatives available (a system involving “trial by battle” that
would not be incompatible with the principles enumerated in Pope Leo XIII’s
Encyclical *Pastoralis, Officio* (prohibiting dueling) ( 1891) would
evidently be much less difficult to justify than the existing  arrangement
requiring burden-bearers to exhaust remedies such as by bringing cases to
court in order to ultimately retain a legitimate claim to use NEOUFUCGC in
order to cover their moral liability in a given and in all, case(s)).

28.  If the Court will not now strike its own order issued on 1/6/05 in this
case, RJM would in that scenario have to respectfully demand a that the
Court stay this case until RJM is provided access to all the documents on
file in 04-11972 and a  telephonic hearing before the Court so that RJjkM
could pose a number of  questions to the Court to which the Court would have
to extemporaneously respond, and that this hearing be held after the Court
would receive all of  RJM’s procedurals and preliminaries.

29.  RJM also must respectfully demand that this Court read and provide a
confirmation under penalty of  perjury that it has read every word of the
document RJM transmitted to the U.S.D.C. of  Massachusetts on 8/7/04 in  regard
to Case No. 00-11141-GAO, in which RJM sought review of  the S.E.C.’s
entirely unjustified claim that RJM was not entitled to recover anything
from what the S.E.C. had confiscated from SG. and that no decision adverse
to RJM’s interests be rendered until the Court has read the entirety of  that
document.

30.  At the end of  the adjudication of  this case, RJM will seek an
endorsement for deputization from the Court in the form of a *nihil obstat *(ie
something less probative of  support and a safer course for the endorser
than the equivalent of  an* imprimatur*).

31.  Hopefully, once RJM is deputized, those inclined to use the machinery
of  the police state now in place in this Country to prey upon him (and
other burden-bearers) , will be deterred from doing so and RJM will never
end up being unjustifiably injured other than by real accidents and will not
have to file anything in any court, which would go a long way towards
helping starve this everygrowing leviathan into submission under the yoke of
the Rule of  Law, which is a yoke that reduces the burden  for all honest
persons in the long run, howsoever onerous the  burdens it entails are  in
the short run in a given case .

32.  RJM herein reminds this Court that the Tucker Act grants jurisdiction
over claims alleging that a plaintiff is entitled to payment from the
treasury (Eastport SS Corp v U.S (178 Ct. Cl 599)),  (__________v. ________,
372 F. 2d 1002 and if less than $10,000.00 is claimed,  a federal district
court  possesses jurisdiction over  such claim.

33.  Depending upon what is in the documents filed in 00-1141-GAO, a claim
may also be present and pleadable on a *Bivens* theory.

*34.  *RJM may also endeavor to file criminal charges on a *qui tam* basis
against the S.E.C. and is entitled to do so under the Constitution.**

*35.  *This case must be prosecuted on the incontrovertible principle
contained in the   axiom *Qui parcit nocentibus, innocentibus punit, * and
God willing, it will be. * *



Wherefore, suffering upon a diet of  the bread of  sorrow  and the water of
affliction (cf Pope Paul IV, Bull *Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio*, 1549) that
is the lot of  Non-counterfeit Catholics in their efforts to cover their
moral liability – ie satisfy the requirements of  the moral law, in all
matters in regard to which an accounting will have to be provided, in these
difficult and distressing times, in which evil has largely  entirely overrun
this land; RJM herein respectfully moves this Court to provide each and
every form of  relief included in the opening paragraph of  this motion
(wherein the provision of  one form is not incompatible with than of
another), most importantly to stay the adjudication of  this case until RJM
can receive access to the entirety of  the documents on file  in
00-11141-GAO, and to confirm that it has been informed that RJM will mail a
copy of an augmentation to this motion and a  proposed order in regard to
this motion as soon as he can get it printed at the local library, not later
than 2/9/05 at the latest, for the Court to wait for the reception of  that
document before ruling on this motion, and for whatever other forms of
relief the Court would deem it necessary to provide at this time.

Under penalty of perjury, I aver to the veracity of  all factual averments
contained herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More









(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.27, p12)



Doc # 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

            V
Case No. 04-11972 WGY

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   et al.,

   Defendants

PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”)VERIFIED MOTION OF 2/9/05 FILED UNDER PROTEST, IN
WHICH HE SEEKS   TO HAVE THIS COURT; 1. SUMMARILY STRIKE ITS ORDER OF  1/6/05,
AND IF IT WILL NOT DO SO, TO TAKE NOTICE THAT DUE TO ADVERSITIES
ENCOUNTERED, RJM WILL NOT SUCCEED IN FILING WHAT HE COMMITTED HIMSELF TO
FILE ON 2/9/05 UNTIL 2/12 OR 2/13/05 AND 2. TO EXTEND THE PERIOD WITHIN
WHICH SERVICE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THIS CASE, 3. ISSUE AN ORDER ENABLING
RJM TO ACCESS THE RACER COURT DOCKET IN THE CASE WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF FEES

Now comes  the Protagonist-Plaintiff, RJM,  (“RJM”) to respectfully move
this Court  to read the entirety of  the contents of  this document, and
then summarily strike its order  issued on   1/6/05 in this case   and
extend the period within which service of  process in this case can be
accomplished in this case, to issue an order enabling RJM to access the
RACER system without payment of  fees for the service and to acknowledge the
errata contained in the motion filed in this case on 2/5/05   and in support
and explanation whereof, RJM avers as follows:

36.  On 2/8/05, RJM’s pernicious landlord, in a desperate attempt to quell
RJM’s opposition to his  malicious and presumptively activity, accused RJM
out of  thin air of “threatening to kill me”, and endeavored to induce a
number of  his toady employees to attest to such fabrication as a pretext to
justify his calling the police to have RJM arrested.  This all followed a
Monday court appearance in which RJM called the landlord for endeavoring as
a non-attorney to represent his corporation in an Illinois Court which is a
misdemeandor in IL.

37.  The series of developments which have followed have necessitated RJM’s
attention to such mess before he gets falsely arrested again.

38.  The long term solution to the problems RJM has been encountering is the
deputization of RJM, unless entire criminal codes can be repealed or
declared unconstitutional as the provisions of  such might ever be applied
to any vigilante-type measures RJM might ever have to apply.

39.  RJM herein substitutes “00-11141-GAO” for the utilization of  “04-11972
WGY” in the motion filed on 2/5/05 in this case in every place in the body
of  that document.

40.  RJM needs access to the file in this case and other cases to continue
to prosecute this case and moves the Court to issue an order requiring RACER
to permit RJM access to such documents without the payment of  fees, which
type order is customarily issued for indigents.

4.   RJM will submit by the 13th of  February, what he committed himself to
submit by the 9th on the Wherefore, RJM herein respectfully moves this Court
to provide each and every form of  relief included in the opening paragraph
of  this motion (wherein the provision of  one form is not incompatible with
that of another and for whatever other forms of relief the Court would deem
it necessary to provide at this time.

Under penalty of perjury, I aver to the veracity of  all factual averments
contained herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More

[ a comment about the consequences of   govt predation was included herein]

these filings are all indicative of the damage done to the country when govt
preys upon the citizens as the SEC has done in this case – under the pretext
of  protecting us.



(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.28, p13)





Doc #13









UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

            V
Case No. 04-11972 WGY

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   et al.,

   Defendants


*PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”) VERIFIED INITIAL COMPONENT OF  WHAT MAY TURN OUT TO
BE AN   OCTA, OR  NON – FURCATED  F.R. of  C.P. RULE 60(B)(1) MOTION OF
2/11/06, FILED UNDER PROTEST, IN WHICH HE SEEKS   TO HAVE THIS COURT: GRANT
ALL OF  THE RELIEF RJM SOUGHT IN THE DOCUMENTS HE MAILED TO THIS COURT ON
2/5/05 AND 2/9/05 RESPECTIVELY IN REGARD TO THE CASE THIS DOCUMENT CONCERNS,
WHICH CONTENTS OF  SUCH DOCUMENTS, RESPECTIVELY, HE INCORPORATES BY
REFERENCE, AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN; AND  WHATEVER ELSE OCCURS, THAT IT
NOW REVERSE ITS DECISION DISMISSING THE CASE,  AND REINSTATE THE CASE  OR AT
LEAST ESTABLISH A BRIEFING SCHEDULE BY WHICH RJM CAN BRIEF ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IMPLICATED  BY THE COMPLETE DENIAL OF THE RIGHTS OF
ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW PRESENT IN THE COURT’S CONDUCT
IN THIS CASE IN DISMISSING IT WITHOUT HAVING PERMITTED RJM OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESERVE FOR FURTHER REVIEW THE SEVERAL PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED IF  THIS MOTION WERE NOT TO BE GRANTED AND TO
PROVIDE THE OTHER FORMS OF RELIEF ENUMERATED IN THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF
INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION*

Now comes the Plaintiff, Robert J. More (“RJM”) to respectfully  and/or
indignantly, and/or in   a combination of  both dispositions depending upon
what the requirements of  the moral law would dictate in regard to this
matter, move this  Court to summarily reverse its decision  of  2/11/05
dismissing RJM’s complaint filed in the case this document concerns, and to
reverse its decision of  2/24/05 in which it denied  what it classified as a
motion to reconsider  (“MTR”)  such dismissal, notwithstanding that  the
motion so classified was completed, mailed and postmarked *before * the date
upon which the order in regard to which such motion was claimed to
constitute a MTR was issued and to grant such relief under the authority of
the express provisions of  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1)
(“60(b)(1)”),  and if it will not now do so to grant leave for the filing of
an eight or nine component motion in this regard, and to include in such
order  directives, directing the PACER Online Document Access Service
(“PACER”) to permit RJM to use the RACER/CM/ECF service without the
incurrment of  costs for such use and the Clerk of  the USDC for the
District of  Massachusetts to permit RJM to file all future documents via
the electronic filing provisions via which attorneys file cases in this
Court  and in support and explanation whereof, RJM avers and explains as
follows:

1.      Procedurally, RJM repeatedly moved this Court in 2004 and 2005 for
permission to file documents electronically and for access to be provided
for RJM to assess the documents filed and the court orders issued in the
SEC’s suit against Stock Generation LTD (“SG”) , out of which this
litigation arose, via the Court’s issuing of  an order directing PACER   to
issue RJM a login and password, which RJM could use without payment of
service costs, as RJM has remained indigent (due in no  small part to the
comparative enormity of  the alignment and accountability problems in the
Federal Courts in this Country at this time, in which it has become
all-but-impossible for a non-attorney to ever get any claim, howsoever
meritorious, to a jury of  his peers for resolution thereof) but the Court
never addressed such petitions, which is a matter which RJM will
appeal if  this
situation is not adequately rectified now.

2.      Without the provision of  access to the CM/ECF System, RJM could not
respond substantively to the Rule to Show Cause issued by this Court on
1/6/05 (RTSC”), because he was not  cognizant of  the particulars of  the
arguments made by the SEC and SG  in the litigation which resulted in the
complaint this document concerns (“complaint” or “case”) having been filed
and could not possibly have been expected to acquire expertise in Securities
Law  and the regulations governing the activity of  the SEC, which is why
RJM petitioned to have this Court appoint an attorney to prosecute  this
case.

3.      The Court must not have read RJM’s motion of 2/5/05 in response to
the RTSC, since it was a motion for an extension of time and other
procedural relief which RJM apprehended that he needed to obtain before
addressing the substantive claims contained in the RTSC.

4.      What the Court classified as a MTR regarding  the Order it issued on
2/11/05 and denied as such, could not possibly have been so classified in
good faith, as it had been composed, signed, mailed and postmarked
*prior*to the entry of
the Order of  2/11/05.

5.      No explanation was ever provided by the Court regarding how RJM
could have responded to an order with a MTR *before* such order had been
issued.

6.      All of  the contents of  the motions RJM filed and mailed this Court
on 2/5/06, 2/9/06 and 2/13/06 are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.

7.      The Court claimed in its RTSC that neither the SEC nor its Attorney
is subject to tort liability for its (his) conduct, but cited no authority
asserting such position.

8.      Even if there is authority supporting such position, RJM could not
have been denied his constitutionally protected property interest to
challenge whatever authority might assert such claim on among other bases,
that no legislative or  judicial authority could have possibly *justifiably*
*intended* that any concept of  sovereign immunity be invoked as a pretext
behind which a government agency would be capable of plundering and
pillaging the property of  its citizens under the color of  law and pretext
of  legitimacy, which is exactly what has occurred in this appalling example
of  the hubris of  those running the SEC, and predatory character of  the
presumptively criminal conduct of  it, in what was in effect simply the
conversion and theft of  the property of citizens of  this Country under the
disgusting pretext of  *protecting *investors.

9.      As one perspicacious observer of  the phenomena involved in such
matter  has opined:

*"When  plunder  becomes  a  way  of  life  for  a group  of  men living
together  in  society,  they  create  for  themselves in  the  course  of
time,  a  legal  system  that authorizes  it  and  a  moral  code  that
glorifies  it."
*Frederick  Bastiat,  1850

10.  RJM herein declares the non-legitimacy of  this Court’s orders of
2/11/05 and 2/24/05 and the non-finality thereof.

11.  Since RJM endeavored repeatedly to contact the individuals responsible
for electronic filing in the Massachusetts District Court during the week
ending 2/11/06 but was unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain instructions
regarding how this document could have been electronically filed and since
it will have been emailed to the email address provided in the website for
such entity on 2/13/06, RJM is taking the position that it has in fact been
“filed” within one year of  2/11/05 – in order to cover any scenario in
which it might otherwise have been claimed that this motion, filed under the
provisions of Rule 60(b)(1) would not have been filed within one year of the
date of the dismissal of  the case.

12.  RJM  does not agree  at this juncture, to prosecute this case according
to  any immunity theory. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that Judges are
not immune from criminal prosecution  for their  judicial conduct under
among other statutes, that of  18 U.S.C.  242  (O’Shea v Littleton 94 S. Ct.
669, 690), and RJM will not  consent to prosecuting this case on any theory
of  tort immunity in this case, at least not at this time, based upon what
has occurred in the adjudication of  this case to this juncture (the only
circumstances in which RJM ever consents to waive any claim to sue a judge
for any torts that might ever be committed in a given case, is in a case in
which RJM has been or would be, endeavoring, to keep a judge with a track
record of  acceptable accountability from ending up off the adjudication of
a given case).

13.   RJM is only including two exhibits to this motion, but informs this
Court that he will submit a collection of  over 20 exhibits in the future in
this case, as soon as he is granted leave to file documents electronically,
which will represent the documents he would have filed last February, had he
not been prevented from continuing to prosecute this case in this Court.

14.  Regarding the several substantive issues implicated by the SEC’s
activity in converting or otherwise stealing RJM’s property, it is RJM’s
position that such activity was entirely incompatible with among other
provisions of  the U.S. Constitution those of the Takings Clause and Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of  such Constitution, which matters
will all be explicated at some future date, after enough structure will have
been superimposed into the proceedings needing to be conducted in this case,
to ensure that  no substantive issue needing to be addressed would remain
unaddressed, which is something that occurs with appalling frequency in
court proceedings conducted in this Country at this time, to the
incalculable injury of  the Republic and its citizens and the very
foundations of civilization themselves.

15.  Since the magnitude of  the problems this document has begun to address
could result in this document extending into a book length, RJM will
truncate it here, except to explain that he may seek to get the injustices
perpetrated by the SEC this document concerns rectified through a private
bill in the U.S. Congress and to explain that the purpose of  Exhibits “A”
“Formula….” and “B” “What the Objective in Regard….” have been included in
RJM’s endeavors to ensure that what can be identified to constitute his
“moral liability in  the matters this document concerns” would not be left
uncovered. The concept that citizens will simply accept court judgments,
howsoever appallingly unjust a given judgment might be without resorting to
other means by which God has equipped them to fulfill the duties to which
they are subject by among the other requirements of God’s Commandments,
those of  the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth is one entirely foreign to
not only the teaching of  the Non-counterfeit Roman Catholic Church but to
any and every society throughout the course of  history in which the
able-bodied
males  of such society(ies)  were not deserving of  the appellations
“selfish cowards” and/or “categorically abject curs”.

16.  This is not a motion filed under Rule 60(b)(4) or (6). Motions under
such paragraphs will be filed if necessary.

Wherefore, suffering upon a diet of  the bread of  sorrow  and the water of
affliction (cf Pope Paul IV, Bull *Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio*, 1549) that
is the lot of  Non-counterfeit Catholics in their efforts to cover their
moral liability – ie satisfy the requirements of  the moral law, in all
matters in regard to which an accounting will have to be provided, in these
difficult and distressing times, in which evil has largely  entirely overrun
this land; RJM herein respectfully moves this Court to provide each and
every form of  relief included in the opening paragraph of  this motion
(wherein the provision of  one form is not incompatible with than of
another), for whatever other forms of relief the Court would deem it
necessary to provide at this time to rectify the patent injustice caused by
its Orders entered into the Court Record in this case on   2/11/06 and
2/24/06..

Under penalty of perjury, I aver to the veracity of  all factual averments
contained herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More









UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

         V
Case No. 04-11972 WGY

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   et al.,

   Defendants

* *

* *

* *

*NOTICE OF FILING*

NOTICE IS HEREIN PROVIDED that the Petitioner Robert J. More did deposit
PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”) VERIFIED INITIAL COMPONENT OF  WHAT MAY TURN OUT TO
BE AN   OCTA, OR  NON – FURCATED  F.R. of  C.P. RULE 60(B)(1) MOTION OF
2/11/06…. along with exhibits thereto, into the  mail  in some regular U.S.
mail postal receptacle in  Chicago, IL on 2/13/06, since there was no
procurement after 12:00 p.m. on 2/11/06 in the  mailbox in which RJM  would
have deposited the documents had he completed composing them all before noon
on 2/11/06, along with  this notice in an envelope addressed to the:



U.S. District Court of  Massachusetts,

Clerk Of Courts  Office/Judge W. Young

1Courthouse Way

Boston MA 02210





Under penalty of perjury pursuant to all applicable federal statutes, I do
certify to the truthfulness of  all factual averments contained herein and
that no certificate of  service was needed for this filing.

*_____________*

Robert J. More

Pro se Petitioner,

2008 S. Blue Island, #39,

Chicago, IL 60608

312 455-8385







(2/25/10 b. 38…..n.29, p14)



Doc # 14



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

            V
Case No. 04-11972 WGY

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   et al.,

   Defendants


*PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”) VERIFIED SECOND COMPONENT OF  WHAT MAY TURN OUT TO
BE AN   OCTA, OR  NON – FURCATED  F.R. of  C.P. RULE 60(B)(1) MOTION MAILED
ON  2/20/06, FILED UNDER PROTEST, IN WHICH HE SEEKS   TO HAVE THIS COURT:
GRANT ALL OF  THE RELIEF RJM SOUGHT IN THE DOCUMENTS HE MAILED TO THIS COURT
ON 2/5/05 AND 2/9/05 RESPECTIVELY IN REGARD TO THE CASE THIS DOCUMENT
CONCERNS, WHICH CONTENTS OF  SUCH DOCUMENTS, RESPECTIVELY, HE INCORPORATES
BY REFERENCE, AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN; AND  WHATEVER ELSE OCCURS, THAT
IT NOW REVERSE ITS DECISION DISMISSING THE CASE,  AND REINSTATE THE CASE  OR
AT LEAST ESTABLISH A BRIEFING SCHEDULE BY WHICH RJM CAN BRIEF ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS IMPLICATED  BY THE COMPLETE DENIAL OF THE RIGHTS OF
ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW PRESENT IN THE COURT’S CONDUCT
IN THIS CASE IN DISMISSING IT WITHOUT HAVING PERMITTED RJM OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESERVE FOR FURTHER REVIEW THE SEVERAL PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED IF  THIS MOTION WERE NOT TO BE GRANTED AND TO
PROVIDE THE OTHER FORMS OF RELIEF ENUMERATED IN THE PRAYER FOR RELIEF
INCLUDED IN THIS MOTION*

Now comes the Plaintiff, Robert J. More (“RJM”) to respectfully  and/or
indignantly, and/or in   a combination of  both dispositions depending upon
what the requirements of  the moral law would dictate in regard to this
matter, move this  Court to summarily reverse its decision  of  2/11/05
dismissing RJM’s complaint filed in the case this document concerns, and to
reverse its decision of  2/24/05 in which it denied  what it classified as a
motion to reconsider  (“MTR”)  such dismissal, notwithstanding that  the
motion so classified was completed, mailed and postmarked *before * the date
upon which the order in regard to which such motion was claimed to
constitute a MTR was issued and to grant such relief under the authority of
the express provisions of  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(1)
(“60(b)(1)”),  and if it will not now do so to grant leave for the filing of
an eight or nine component motion in this regard, and to include in such
order  directives, directing the PACER Online Document Access Service
(“PACER”) to permit RJM to use the RACER/CM/ECF service without the
incurrment of  costs for such use and the Clerk of  the USDC for the
District of  Massachusetts to permit RJM to file all future documents via
the electronic filing provisions via which attorneys file cases in this
Court  and in support and explanation whereof, RJM avers and explains as
follows:

Proposed order for 2/11/06

Under penalty of  perjury pursuant to the provisions of  28 USC 1746, I aver
to the veracity of all factual averments contained herein and that if  called
to testify in regard thereto at trial that I could do so in regard thereto
upon personal knowledge in regard thereto.

Relief guaranteed under provisions of  Rule 59 not provided, in fact no
relief in truth was provided at all in what could not possibly be claimed to
have constituted a good faith proceeding.

17.  Procedurally, RJM repeatedly moved this Court in 2004 and 2005 for
permission to file documents electronically and for access to be provided
for RJM to assess the documents filed and the court orders issued in the
SEC’s suit against Stock Generation LTD (“SG”) , out of which this
litigation arose, via the Court’s issuing of  an order directing PACER   to
issue RJM a login and password, which RJM could use without payment of
service costs, as RJM has remained indigent (due in no  small part to the
comparative enormity of  the alignment and accountability problems in the
Federal Courts in this Country at this time, in which it has become
all-but-impossible for a non-attorney to ever get any claim, howsoever
meritorious, to a jury of  his peers for resolution thereof) but the Court
never addressed such petitions, which is a matter which RJM will
appeal if  this
situation is not adequately rectified now.

18.  Without the provision of  access to the CM/ECF System, RJM could not
respond substantively to the Rule to Show Cause issued by this Court on
1/6/05 (RTSC”), because he was not  cognizant of  the particulars of  the
arguments made by the SEC and SG  in the litigation which resulted in the
complaint this document concerns (“complaint” or “case”) having been filed
and could not possibly have been expected to acquire expertise in Securities
Law  and the regulations governing the activity of  the SEC, which is why
RJM petitioned to have this Court appoint an attorney to prosecute  this
case.

19.  The Court must not have read RJM’s motion of 2/5/05 in response to the
RTSC, since it was a motion for an extension of time and other procedural
relief which RJM apprehended that he needed to obtain before addressing the
substantive claims contained in the RTSC.

20.  What the Court classified as a MTR regarding  the Order it issued on
2/11/05 and denied as such, could not possibly have been so classified in
good faith, as it had been composed, signed, mailed and postmarked
*prior*to the entry of
the Order of  2/11/05.

21.  No explanation was ever provided by the Court regarding how RJM could
have responded to an order with a MTR *before* such order had been issued.

22.  All of  the contents of  the motions RJM filed and mailed this Court on
2/5/06, 2/9/06 and 2/13/06 are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.

23.  The Court claimed in its RTSC that neither the SEC nor its Attorney is
subject to tort liability for its (his) conduct, but cited no authority
asserting such position.

24.  Even if there is authority supporting such position, RJM could not have
been denied his constitutionally protected property interest to challenge
whatever authority might assert such claim on among other bases, that no
legislative or  judicial authority could have possibly *justifiably* *
intended* that any concept of  sovereign immunity be invoked as a pretext
behind which a government agency would be capable of plundering and
pillaging the property of  its citizens under the color of  law and pretext
of  legitimacy, which is exactly what has occurred in this appalling example
of  the hubris of  those running the SEC, and predatory character of  the
presumptively criminal conduct of  it, in what was in effect simply the
conversion and theft of  the property of citizens of  this Country under the
disgusting pretext of  *protecting *investors.

25.  As one perspicacious observer of  the phenomena involved in such matter
has opined:

*"When  plunder  becomes  a  way  of  life  for  a group  of  men living
together  in  society,  they  create  for  themselves in  the  course  of
time,  a  legal  system  that authorizes  it  and  a  moral  code  that
glorifies  it."
*Frederick  Bastiat,  1850

26.  RJM herein declares the non-legitimacy of  this Court’s orders of
2/11/05 and 2/24/05 and the non-finality thereof.

27.  Since RJM endeavored repeatedly to contact the individuals responsible
for electronic filing in the Massachusetts District Court during the week
ending 2/11/06 but was unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain instructions
regarding how this document could have been electronically filed and since
it will have been emailed to the email address provided in the website for
such entity on 2/13/06, RJM is taking the position that it has in fact been
“filed” within one year of  2/11/05 – in order to cover any scenario in
which it might otherwise have been claimed that this motion, filed under the
provisions of Rule 60(b)(1) would not have been filed within one year of the
date of the dismissal of  the case.

28.  RJM  does not agree  at this juncture, to prosecute this case according
to  any immunity theory. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that Judges are
not immune from criminal prosecution  for their  judicial conduct under
among other statutes, that of  18 U.S.C.  242  (O’Shea v Littleton 94 S. Ct.
669, 690), and RJM will not  consent to prosecuting this case on any theory
of  tort immunity in this case, at least not at this time, based upon what
has occurred in the adjudication of  this case to this juncture (the only
circumstances in which RJM ever consents to waive any claim to sue a judge
for any torts that might ever be committed in a given case, is in a case in
which RJM has been or would be, endeavoring, to keep a judge with a track
record of  acceptable accountability from ending up off the adjudication of
a given case).

29.   RJM is only including two exhibits to this motion, but informs this
Court that he will submit a collection of  over 20 exhibits in the future in
this case, as soon as he is granted leave to file documents electronically,
which will represent the documents he would have filed last February, had he
not been prevented from continuing to prosecute this case in this Court.

30.  Regarding the several substantive issues implicated by the SEC’s
activity in converting or otherwise stealing RJM’s property, it is RJM’s
position that such activity was entirely incompatible with among other
provisions of  the U.S. Constitution those of the Takings Clause and Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of  such Constitution, which matters
will all be explicated at some future date, after enough structure will have
been superimposed into the proceedings needing to be conducted in this case,
to ensure that  no substantive issue needing to be addressed would remain
unaddressed, which is something that occurs with appalling frequency in
court proceedings conducted in this Country at this time, to the
incalculable injury of  the Republic and its citizens and the very
foundations of civilization themselves.

31.  Since the magnitude of  the problems this document has begun to address
could result in this document extending into a book length, RJM will
truncate it here, except to explain that he may seek to get the injustices
perpetrated by the SEC this document concerns rectified through a private
bill in the U.S. Congress and to explain that the purpose of  Exhibits “A”
“Formula….” and “B” “What the Objective in Regard….” have been included in
RJM’s endeavors to ensure that what can be identified to constitute his
“moral liability in  the matters this document concerns” would not be left
uncovered. The concept that citizens will simply accept court judgments,
howsoever appallingly unjust a given judgment might be without resorting to
other means by which God has equipped them to fulfill the duties to which
they are subject by among the other requirements of God’s Commandments,
those of  the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth is one entirely foreign to
not only the teaching of  the Non-counterfeit Roman Catholic Church but to
any and every society throughout the course of  history in which the
able-bodied
males  of such society(ies)  were not deserving of  the appellations
“selfish cowards” and/or “categorically abject curs”.

32.  This is not a motion filed under Rule 60(b)(4) or (6). Motions under
such paragraphs will be filed if necessary.

Wherefore, suffering upon a diet of  the bread of  sorrow  and the water of
affliction (cf Pope Paul IV, Bull *Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio*, 1549) that
is the lot of  Non-counterfeit Catholics in their efforts to cover their
moral liability – ie satisfy the requirements of  the moral law, in all
matters in regard to which an accounting will have to be provided, in these
difficult and distressing times, in which evil has largely  entirely overrun
this land; RJM herein respectfully moves this Court to provide each and
every form of  relief included in the opening paragraph of  this motion
(wherein the provision of  one form is not incompatible with than of
another), for whatever other forms of relief the Court would deem it
necessary to provide at this time to rectify the patent injustice caused by
its Orders entered into the Court Record in this case on   2/11/06 and
2/24/06..

Under penalty of perjury, I aver to the veracity of  all factual averments
contained herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More









UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR MASSACHUSETTS

   Robert J. More

   Plaintiff

         V
Case No. 04-11972 WGY

   United States Securities And Exchange Commission,

   et al.,

   Defendants

* *

* *

* *

*NOTICE OF FILING*

NOTICE IS HEREIN PROVIDED that the Petitioner Robert J. More did deposit
PLAINTIFF’S  (“RJM’S”) VERIFIED INITIAL COMPONENT OF  WHAT MAY TURN OUT TO
BE AN   OCTA, OR  NON – FURCATED  F.R. of  C.P. RULE 60(B)(1) MOTION OF
2/11/06…. along with exhibits thereto, into the  mail  in some regular U.S.
mail postal receptacle in  Chicago, IL on 2/13/06, since there was no
procurement after 12:00 p.m. on 2/11/06 in the  mailbox in which RJM  would
have deposited the documents had he completled composing them all before
noon on 2/11/06, along with  this notice in an envelope addressed to the:



U.S. District Court of  Massachusetts,

Clerk Of Courts  Office/Judge W. Young

1Courthouse Way

Boston MA 02210





Under penalty of perjury pursuant to all applicable federal statutes, I do
certify to the truthfulness of  all factual averments contained herein and
that no certificate of  service was needed for this filing.

*_____________*

Robert J. More

Pro se Petitioner,

2008 S. Blue Island, #39,

Chicago, IL 60608

312 455-8385