Defendant’s (“CLB”’s) Initial Component of Verified Motion of 3/12/07 For Resolution of all Issues Addressed Herein on 3/13/07, or 3/14/07, in which CLB Moves this Court to: either summarily dismiss the complaint filed in the case this document concerns (“this case”) at this juncture in the adjudication thereof and if this Court would not now do so, to provide a confirmation that the petition for such dismissal contained herein has in no way constituted a waiver or relinquishment of any claim possessed by CLB to file a more extensive motion to dismiss such complaint later in the adjudication of this case or else to 1. consider and issue rulings in regard to the 41 “… Proposed Ground Rules….” Contained in Exhibit “A” to this motion, so that structure adequate to prevent the miscarrying of this case will not have not been superimposed upon such adjudication and 1.a Permit CLB leave to amend the caption of the complaint filed in the case this motion concerns (“this case”) to read: “Anti-genocidist Christopher Bollyn and the 92% of this World’s People whose cause he has been and continues to advocate, if admittedly not by any express designation”, 2. provide a confirmation that no measure(s) will be implemented to prevent the Bifurcated Defense of this case, nor possibly the Tri-furcation of such defense, 3. Issue an order now requiring before the end of the week ending 3/17/07 that the entirety of the direct examination of all Prosecution witnesses be committed to some type of media device or other and that there will not be permitted at trial even the slightest deviation from the content(s) of such media device, be it a CD or a paper transcript or whatever form it might take and that in the scenario in which there might be any deviation therefrom in whatever testimony might be proffered in court from a given prosecution witness that the prior testimony recorded in the week ending 3/17/07, would constitute the state’s testimony in regard to each witness’es direct examination contained in such media device and that in a scenario in which there would be anything other than a categorically de minimus discrepancy between the prior recorded testimony and the in-trial testimony in regard to any of the prosecution’s witnesses, that the jury would be provided an instruction, that any such discrepancy would compel the jury to disregard the entirety of the prosecution’s testimony on the principle: Falso in uno, falsus in omnibus and that the presence of a second such type discrepancy would automatically elicit a directed verdict against the prosecution upon the identification of the presence thereof in its direct examination, 4. Declare that any sentencing that might ever be implemented in this case, should CLB somehow end up getting convicted in this case would be stayed pending the exhaustion of any and all appeals in this case including any petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari that might ever be filed in regard thereto, 5. Declare that any and all proceedings that would ever be conducted in regard to this case in the Supreme Court of the State of IL would be adjudicated solely by Chief Justice R. Thomas, whether such proceedings would be adjudicated in an Illinois Supreme Court Rule 383 Petition, or a Petition for Leave to Appeal to such Court, and that any and all proceedings that would ever be conducted in regard to this case in the Supreme Court of the United States would be adjudicated solely by Chief Justice J. Roberts, whether such proceedings would be adjudicated upon the presentation of a U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20 Petition for an Extraordinary Writ or a Petition for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, or in any actual briefing and/or arguing of a petition in regard thereto that would have been granted, 6. Provide a confirmation that this Court has been informed by CLB that in regard to each and every petition for relief that might ever be presented to this Court in regard to this case, that CLB would intend to immediately appeal any and every denial that might ever be issued to the Supreme Court of the State of IL on a S.Ct. Rule 383 petition for a supervisory order basis, 7. Provide a confirmation that this Court has been informed that CLB is committed to the accomplishment of the preservation of any and all federal questions that might ever arise in the adjudication of this case according to the formula promulgated in regard to the preservation thereof, by the U.S. Supreme Court, in among other cases, that of Webb v Webb (_U.S._), 8. Now strike the trial date that has been established in this case, and if this Court would not now dismiss the complaint on file therein, reset it for sometime in September of 2007, which would presumably leave CLB sufficient time to complete the considerable discovery that he understands he would have to conduct in this case in order to ensure that no injustice would result from the adjudication thereof, 9. Confirm that this Court has been informed that it is CLB’s position that CLB will only participate in proceedings conducted in this case under the most indignant of protests and that no participation therein has constituted, nor would ever constitute, any type of admission that this Court has ever possessed jurisdiction over this case, nor that any claim has been waived or otherwise relinquished by CLB’s coerced participation in such proceedings, 9. Immediately provide a confirmation that no measure would be implemented to prevent CLB from bringing to court and using a camcorder with the video screen closed in order to make a record of any and all proceedings that would ever be conducted in this case, 10. Provide a confirmation that in regard to any type of disciplinary measures that CLB might ever consider it necessary to seek, that CLB has herein informed this Court and the prosecutor that in such conjectural scenario that CLB would seek to have any ARDC or JIB proceedings which CLB might ever consider himself compelled to initiate, adjudicated solely before Chief Justice Thomas, with all other stages of the process(es) in place in such regard simply bypassed, and that in any proceeding that would ever be incepted in this regard, that a person of CLB’s choice rather the agents in place in the ARDC or the JIB for purposes of prosecuting such matters, would conduct any prosecution ever conducted in such matters, 11. Confirm that CLB has informed it that CLB intends to serve proposed verified statements upon this Court in regard to each petition for relief that he would submit thereto, for purposes of vindicating among other critically important public interests implicated in this case, the right of the public to everyman’s evidence, and that CLB would propose that a signed copy of such statement(s) in each case in which such would be submitted would be left with the Courtroom Clerk so that CLB could procure such within 24 hours of his having submitted it, except in any case in which this Court would provide notice that 24 hours would not have been sufficient time within which to consider the contents of a given petition and its supporting documents, 12. Confirm that if this case should go to trial that CLB would intend, under the provisions of the Common Law Completeness Doctrine, codified in the Federal Rules of Evidence as F.R.E. 106, to conduct an extensive direct examination in his defense in chief, which would include the calling of several expert witnesses, such as for example Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton, and the presentation of several media entities, so that no jury would be prevented from being adequately informed regarding what CLB is convinced actually happened in the matters which have resulted in this case now being adjudicated in this Court, 12. Confirm that it has been informed by CLB that constraints of time and other exigencies prohibit CLB from herein positing the other claims for relief which he would now seek in this case, but for the pressing nature of such exigencies, in regard to which such matters, petition in regard thereto, will be submitted to this court as the submission thereof would seem to have become necessary as the adjudication of this case proceeds and 13. for any other form of relief that this Court would now consider it necessary to grant for purposes of preventing any injustice from prevailing in the matters this case concerns.
Now comes the Defendant, CLB to move this Court to grant the various forms of relief enumerated in the title to this motion and in support and explanation whereof, CLB avers and explains as follows:
1. Since if either the State were to now stipulate to the dismissal of this case or the Court were to now summarily grant the petition therefore contained herein, there would be no need and hence no evident justification in CLB’s consuming even more limited time and resources than he already has in explaining the basis for the petitions for relief contained in the title to this motion, CLB will await a ruling on such motion before proceeding further.
2. In the event the dismissal sought would now not be granted, CLB would move this Court to confirm that the seeking of such in no way could have resulted in any waiver or relinquishment of CLB’s constitutionally protected inalienable right to file a more potent motion to dismiss in this case on various grounds, the enumeration of which would be beyond the scope of this motion.
3. One basis upon which CLB would petition this Court to grant such relief would be the obvious malice according to which the prosecution has been incepted, in regard to which claim CLB would provide some particulars in regard thereto, if asked to do so when this case is called in the next audience in which it would be called.
4. A copy of a proposed order in regard to this motion, will, Providence-willing, be presented to this Court and the Prosecutor on the morning in which an audience would be conducted in regard to such motion.
Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of 735 ILCS 5/1-109, the undersigned avers to the veracity of all factual averments contained herein..
Wherefore, Defendant, CLB, herein moves this Court to now dismiss this case and if it will not do so, to now grant the various forms of relief enumerated in the title to this motion and whatever other forms of relief that this Court would now consider it necessary to grant for purposes of preventing any injustice from prevailing in the matters this case concerns.