IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

G.M.A.C.

V 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes et al

Prospective Amicus Curant Filer (“PACF”), Robert J. More’s (“RJM”s) Proposed Initial Component of Amicus Curiae Brief of 1/21/11

Now comes RJM to move this Hon. Court to grant RJM leave to participate in the adjudication of this case as an amicus currant for a number of reasons, a complete explication of which would necessarily be beyond the scope of this document but in regard to which an explanation whereof would be provided upon RJM’s receiving a request and/or demand wherefore and in support and explanation whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows:

A very substantial number of hours have been consumed by RJM over the past two weeks in his endeavoring to assist RBD to either procure counsel to represent him in this case or to enable RBD to litigate the case adequately himself.
It is RJM’s informed opinion that RBD is woefully incapable of adequately litigating this case on his own.
One possible alternative via which RJM can contribute to the just resolution of the matters this case concerns (“these matters”) is RJM’s participating in such litigation as an amicus curiae filer.
There are a large number of issues which RBD must get addressed before participating in any discovery in this case, if RBD cannot procure the assistance of a licensed attorney in re whereto in order to ensure that a resolution of this case which would possess legitimacy can be accomplished.
RBD does not even possess an intact and complete record of what CVLS had entered into the record he possesses, which makes it impossible to provide a complete file to anyone.
RBD is also concerned to address any unjustified claims made about RBD’s activity by CVLS.
To be continued

Wherefore, RJM herein respectfully moves this Court to grant the relief described in the title to this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More Rom. 12:21

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

G.M.A.C.

V 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes et al

Proposed Order of 1/21/11 of Prospective Amicus Curiae Filer, RJM

RJM shall be permitted to file an amicus curiae on an in seriatum basis in regard to the case this order concerns if RBD cannot procure counsel to represent him wherein.

Issues – Attorney Andjelko Galic – as soon as RBD delivers acopy of the deed and any power of attorney which constitutes the basis upon which foreclosure is being sought in the case this document concerns (“this case”), AG will inform RBD whether AG is willing to represent RBD in this case.

Unless RBD’s adversaries in this case stipulate to waive any claim to keep evidence which would ever be presented by RBD without the adequate establishment of a foundation wherefore in a given instance out of the trial court record in this case which might be possessed by any of them in the absence of the provision of such type waiver, RBD does not consent to participate in the conducting of any depositions and/or any trial in regard to this case. without the assistance of someone who has read the entirety of what a licensed attorney would have had to have read in order to pass a bar exam in some state of the u.S. of A.

RBD is presently considering what relief RBD needs to procure in order to protect the claims he understands that he is obliged to protect in terms of keeping claims any adversary might posit which would not be adequately credible out of the TCR and RBD waives no right in this regard.

RBD needs to either procure documents transmitted to Cynthia Young or procure the file

www.thirstforjustice.net (Danpo1-21-11)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

G.M.A.C.

V 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes et al

Proposed Order of 1/21/11 of Defendant/CounterPlaintiff Richard Dannigellis (“RBD”)

This case having come before this Court on RBD’s Motion of 1/11/11, service of such motion and any and all documents related to such motion having allegedly been adequately accomplished and this Court having been advised in the premises to the extent it considered it necessary for it to be so advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

Because RBD is concerned that he lacks the knowledge of the rules of evidence to adequately protect the interests he understands that he is obliged to continue to endeavor to protect at any deposition of him ever conducted in this case, unless he can receive assistance from someone or other(s) who are evidently less ignorant of the rules of evidence than is he, he will be permitted to have two other persons be present at any and all depositions ever taken of him in this case,
or Attorney ________________will be appointed solely to defend the deposition of RBD, taken in this case,
or use of any deposition taken wherein shall be restricted solely to its investigative function and to the exclusion of any use of any of the contents of such deposition for purposes of limiting RBD’s testimony at trial and/or for impeachment purposes,
Since, inter alia, in Farretta a CA (_U.S._) the SCOTUS explained that in the English Common Law tradition, the ‘“first “counsel” were friends of the defendant”, RBD will be permitted to have affiliates accompany him in the conducting of the deposition.
For all of the reasons postulated in the motion which accompanies this document, RBD will be permitted to bring an audio recording device into any building in which his deposition would ever be taken and to create an audio-taped record of the contents of such deposition.
Since attorney friends of RBD might be more likely to be available at 13:00 p.m. to assist him than at 9:30 a.m., the deposition of RBD will be conducted at 13:00 pm. Not 9:30 a.m.
Since RBD is 72 years old and will be subjected to deposition questioning from multiple attorneys much younger than he is, the deposition length shall be limited to 3 hours which can be reconvened after 90 minute breaks until it would be completed, provided the entire proceeding would not exceed 630 total minutes.
In consideration of the burden to which litigants are subject to adequately litigate issues of a federal constitutional dimension in the first instance in any trial court proceedings ever conducted in any adjudication of any case ever conducted, in order to accommodate the legitimate reliance interests implicated by the petitions included in the motion which accompanies this document (“Motion 1/11”), RBD will be permitted to brief each of the issues raised in such motion prior to the incurrment of any detriment for not having gotten any and/or all such issues adequately presented to and addressed by, this Court, according to the following schedule: __________________________ RBD shall have until ________________, to present a memorandum in support of the motion of 1/11/11, adversaries shall have until __________________, to present any responses to such petitions and arguments as RBD would submit to this Court, RBD shall have until ____________________, to reply, a status hearing is set for ____________________________, in re these matters and the deposition set for 1/20/11 will be conducted as scheduled solely as an investigatory tool at 13:00 p.m. _______________, or such deposition shall be rescheduled for _______________________.
RBD shall be permitted to serve copies of any and all documents ever filed in this case upon any and all adversaries in this case via email beginning on 1/11/11 ______________________.
This Court herein further declares that:

www.thirstforjustice.net (Danmot1-11-11)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

G.M.A.C.

V 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes et al

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff Richard Dannigellis’es (“RBD”) Motion of 1/11/11 Set for 1/19/11, Filed Instanter to Either Facilitate the Procurement of Various Forms of Consideration Evidently Needed to Ensure the Protection of Various Forms of Consideration (“Rights”), Enumerated Amongst those Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution of the u.S. of A. of RBD’s Should this Motion be Uncontested or At Least to Procure a Briefing Schedule In Regard to All Such Matters, Prior to the Incurrment of any Un-remediable Harm, So that at the Very Least, No Claim to any Consideration Will have Been Relinquished Due to Its Not having been Adequately Presented and Preserved in the Trial Court in the First Instance

Now comes RBD to respectfully move this Honorable Court to grant the relief referenced in the title to this motion as explicated in the “Proposed Order of 1/11/11” (“P/O/ 1/11/11”) which accompanies this motion, and in support whereof, RBD avers and explains as follows:

RBD is an inexperienced litigant who is participating in the case this document concerns (“this case”) in persona propria.
Entries 2-8 ommitted.
A deposition of RBD is scheduled for 1/20/11.
RBD is concerned that he lacks the knowledge of the rules of evidence to adequately protect the interests he understands that he is obliged to continue to endeavor to protect at such deposition, unless he can receive assistance from someone or other(s) who are less ignorant of the rules of evidence than is he.
Unless this Court would appoint an attorney to defend solely the deposition taking, and/or issue an order restricting the use of any deposition taken solely to its investigative function and to the exclusion of any use of such deposition for purposes of limiting RBD’s testimony at trial and/or for impeachment purposes, RBD understands that he needs assistance from others to participate in such deposition.
RBD has absolutely nothing to hide in re this case (nor hopefully in any other matter), but it is a truth so well established as to require no citation to authority in support whereof, that innocent persons not sufficiently educated in various areas of the law and/or not possessing the astuteness of intellect to adequately recognize the possible ramnifications of the provision of a given answer to a given question in a given interrogatorial arrangement, might end up in the provision of a given answer getting “snagged” in a sense analogous to what in Kastigar v U.S. (_U.S._), the SCOTUS described as “ambiguous circumstances”, such that any testimony provided by him in such deposition might be used for an illicit purpose.
In other words an answer not sufficiently complete, or alternatively, in which not enough information would be provided to foreclose the possibility of the use of a given answer for an illicit purpose could cause serious harm to the cause RBD continues to champion.
In Farretta a CA (_U.S._) the SCOTUS explained that in the English Common Law tradition, the ‘“first “counsel” were friends of the defendant”.
If this Court would not provide RBD legal counsel solely for the deposition, RBD would move this Court to permit him to have affiliates accompany him in the conducting of the deposition.
RBD also would move this Court to permit him to create an audio-taped record of the contents of such deposition.
In Murdock v PA, (_U.S._) the SCOTUS opined that no state may take a secured right, reduce it to a privilege and require the procurement of a license for purposes of the exercise whereof.
RBD possesses any number of rights guaranteed by various express provisions of the Constitution of the u.S. of A. as incorporated to the activity of state actors via the incorporation provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of such Constitution and/or the express provision of the Due Process Clause of such Amendment itself, which it is his understanding would not be adequately accommodated were he prevented from creating an audio recording of any deposition proceedings ever conducted in this case.
RBD has continued, without burdening this court, to endeavor to superimpose structure around the deposition taking adequate to protect the interests referenced herein and one issue is whether attorney friends might be more likely to be available at 13:00 p.m. to assist him than at 9:30 a.m..
RBD is also concerned that any deposition conducted in re this case be structured such that it not be unduly wearying upon a person of ordinary firmness, since it is certainly less fatiguing for 3 attorneys to depose one deponent than one deponent to maintain alertness and vigilance while subject to the questions of 3 attorneys.
RBD is a senior citizen on a limited income who needs to drive out costs and keep expenses to a bare minimum and so seeks leave of court to serve any and all copies of documents needing to be served on adversaries via email from this point forward in the litigation of this case.
Should this Court not grant relief sufficient to adequately accommodate any and all legitimate reliance interests implicated by the petitions included in this motion, RBD would respectfully herein seek sufficient relief to enable RBD to get each and all of the issues herein referenced, howsoever summarily, which might constitute a “federal question”, adequately “pressed and passed upon” Webb v Webb (_U.S._), Ill v Gates (_U.S._), so as to ensure that no claim to relief would have been relinquished due to its not having been adequately preserved in any trial court proceedings ever conducted in this case.

Wherefore, RBD herein respectfully moves this Hon. Court to grant the relief referenced in various components of this motion and for any other relief that this Court would consider it necessary to provide at this juncture of the adjudication of this case in order to ensure that its moral liability in the exercise(s) of its authority in regard to this case would not ever end up not adequately covered.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Daniggelis

Proposed Order of 1/21/11 of Defendant/CounterPlaintiff Richard Dannigellis (“RBD”)

Because RBD is concerned that he lacks the knowledge of the rules of evidence to adequately protect the interests he understands that he is obliged to continue to endeavor to protect at any deposition of him ever conducted in this case, unless he can receive assistance from someone or other(s) who are evidently less ignorant of the rules of evidence than is he, he will be permitted to have two other persons be present at any and all depositions ever taken of him in this case,
or Attorney ________________will be appointed solely to defend the deposition of RBD, taken in this case,
or use of any deposition taken wherein shall be restricted solely to its investigative function and to the exclusion of any use of any of the contents of such deposition for purposes of limiting RBD’s testimony at trial and/or for impeachment purposes,
Since, inter alia, in Farretta a CA (_U.S._) the SCOTUS explained that in the English Common Law tradition, the ‘“first “counsel” were friends of the defendant”, RBD will be permitted to have affiliates accompany him in the conducting of the deposition.
For all of the reasons postulated in the motion which accompanies this document, RBD will be permitted to bring an audio recording device into any building in which his deposition would ever be taken and to create an audio-taped record of the contents of such deposition.
Since attorney friends of RBD might be more likely to be available at 13:00 p.m. to assist him than at 9:30 a.m., the deposition of RBD will be conducted at 13:00 pm. Not 9:30 a.m.
Since RBD is 72 years old and will be subjected to deposition questioning from multiple attorneys much younger than he is, the deposition length shall be limited to 3 hours which can be reconvened after 90 minute breaks until it would be completed, provided the entire proceeding would not exceed 630 total minutes.
In consideration of the burden to which litigants are subject to adequately litigate issues of a federal constitutional dimension in the first instance in any trial court proceedings ever conducted in any adjudication of any case ever conducted, in order to accommodate the legitimate reliance interests implicated by the petitions included in the motion which accompanies this document (“Motion 1/11”), RBD will be permitted to brief each of the issues raised in such motion prior to the incurrment of any detriment for not having gotten any and/or all such issues adequately presented to and addressed by, this Court, according to the following schedule: __________________________ RBD shall have until ________________, to present a memorandum in support of the motion of 1/11/11, adversaries shall have until __________________, to present any responses to such petitions and arguments as RBD would submit to this Court, RBD shall have until ____________________, to reply, a status hearing is set for ____________________________, in re these matters and the deposition set for 1/20/11 will be conducted as scheduled solely as an investigatory tool at 13:00 p.m. _______________, or such deposition shall be rescheduled for _______________________.
RBD shall be permitted to serve copies of any and all documents ever filed in this case upon any and all adversaries in this case via email beginning on 1/11/11 ______________________.
This Court herein further declares that:

www.thirstforjustice.net (Danmot1-11-11)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

G.M.A.C.

V 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes et al

RBD is an inexperienced litigant who is participating in the case this document concerns (“this case”) in persona propria.
Entries 2-8 ommitted.
A deposition of RBD is scheduled for 1/20/11.
RBD is concerned that he lacks the knowledge of the rules of evidence to adequately protect the interests he understands that he is obliged to continue to endeavor to protect at such deposition, unless he can receive assistance from someone or other(s) who are less ignorant of the rules of evidence than is he.
Unless this Court would appoint an attorney to defend solely the deposition taking, and/or issue an order restricting the use of any deposition taken solely to its investigative function and to the exclusion of any use of such deposition for purposes of limiting RBD’s testimony at trial and/or for impeachment purposes, RBD understands that he needs assistance from others to participate in such deposition.
RBD has absolutely nothing to hide in re this case (nor hopefully in any other matter), but it is a truth so well established as to require no citation to authority in support whereof, that innocent persons not sufficiently educated in various areas of the law and/or not possessing the astuteness of intellect to adequately recognize the possible ramnifications of the provision of a given answer to a given question in a given interrogatorial arrangement, might end up in the provision of a given answer getting “snagged” in a sense analogous to what in Kastigar v U.S. (_U.S._), the SCOTUS described as “ambiguous circumstances”, such that any testimony provided by him in such deposition might be used for an illicit purpose.
In other words an answer not sufficiently complete, or alternatively, in which not enough information would be provided to foreclose the possibility of the use of a given answer for an illicit purpose could cause serious harm to the cause RBD continues to champion.
In Farretta a CA (_U.S._) the SCOTUS explained that in the English Common Law tradition, the ‘“first “counsel” were friends of the defendant”.
If this Court would not provide RBD legal counsel solely for the deposition, RBD would move this Court to permit him to have affiliates accompany him in the conducting of the deposition.
RBD also would move this Court to permit him to create an audio-taped record of the contents of such deposition.
In Murdock v PA, (_U.S._) the SCOTUS opined that no state may take a secured right, reduce it to a privilege and require the procurement of a license for purposes of the exercise whereof.
RBD possesses any number of rights guaranteed by various express provisions of the Constitution of the u.S. of A. as incorporated to the activity of state actors via the incorporation provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of such Constitution and/or the express provision of the Due Process Clause of such Amendment itself, which it is his understanding would not be adequately accommodated were he prevented from creating an audio recording of any deposition proceedings ever conducted in this case.
RBD has continued, without burdening this court, to endeavor to superimpose structure around the deposition taking adequate to protect the interests referenced herein and one issue is whether attorney friends might be more likely to be available at 13:00 p.m. to assist him than at 9:30 a.m..
RBD is also concerned that any deposition conducted in re this case be structured such that it not be unduly wearying upon a person of ordinary firmness, since it is certainly less fatiguing for 3 attorneys to depose one deponent than one deponent to maintain alertness and vigilance while subject to the questions of 3 attorneys.
RBD is a senior citizen on a limited income who needs to drive out costs and keep expenses to a bare minimum and so seeks leave of court to serve any and all copies of documents needing to be served on adversaries via email from this point forward in the litigation of this case.
Should this Court not grant relief sufficient to adequately accommodate any and all legitimate reliance interests implicated by the petitions included in this motion, RBD would respectfully herein seek sufficient relief to enable RBD to get each and all of the issues herein referenced, howsoever summarily, which might constitute a “federal question”, adequately “pressed and passed upon” Webb v Webb (_U.S._), Ill v Gates (_U.S._), so as to ensure that no claim to relief would have been relinquished due to its not having been adequately preserved in any trial court proceedings ever conducted in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Richard Daniggelis

<<<<<<

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL

Chancery Division

U.S. Bank,or GMAC Banck and/or any and All Successor(s) in Interest Whereof

v Case # 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes,

Richard Daniggelis, et al

Initial Conditional Component of 8/28/13 of "Worst Case Scenario Coverage" Motion to Reconsider Court Order of 7/30/13 ("MTR") in This Case Denying Petition to Intervene of Robert J. More ("RJM") Filed In Order to Cover a Scenario in Which it Would Be the Case that by 11/26/13, Either No Stipulation Regarding the "Preservation of Issues" Would have Been Procured nor Any Amici Petition Filed Nor Any Cause Exculpating RJM from Any Continued Participation in this Case would Have Been Identified, Set For 11/26/13 Or As Soon Whereafter As an Adjudication of this Matter Might be Provided Sufficient to Assure the Adequate Preservation of Various Issues Possibly Not Adequately Preserved as of 8/28/13, with Invitation Included Herein to the SCR 298 Processing Team in Room 2005 of the RDC to Observe a Method of Adjudication of 298 Petitions that Accommodates Legitimate Reliance Interests Rather than Disregarding Them so That Such Type Process Can Now Be Utilized By Such Team in the Future, to Be Superseded if Necessary by 11/22/13

Now comes Deputy Burden Bearer (Matt. 11:30) Robert J. More ("RJM") to respectfully move this Court to permit RJM to enter into the Trial Court Record and Procure an Adjudication of a Powers v Ohio (499 U.S. 400) argument in regard to the matter this petition concerns in deference to the Court's eminently valid distinctions made distinguishing RJM's original filing posture from the authority promulgated in "Whitmore v AK" (_U.S._) and the equally legitimate concern to not open any "floodgates" for intermeddlers, especially since the "Goliaths" would be generally far more capable of utilizing such than would be the "Davids", if it would be the case that none of the developments referenced in the title to this motion would have transpired by 11/22/13.

R.S. Robert J. More

All parties of record in this case will have received a copy of this document by 11/19/13 and this Court will have received a machine printed copy of it by then as well.

863 688-9880 (lv msg)

anselm45@gmail.com

For the sake of full disclosure - the Chief Judge of the CCCC, Il received a tribute to the process utilized in this Court's adjudication of 7/30/13 referenced herein and an identification of

the disparity between such and that often used in Room 2005 in adjudications of "298's". Care was taken not to deliver a copy whereof to this Court, there has been absolutely nothing "ex parte" involved, and the intention in submitting such was not to procure any advantage of any type but only to contribute to the improvement of the system for the entirety of the members of the population effected by its activity.

6/21/13 of Petition of Robert J. More ("RJM") for Leave to Intervene into the Ajudication of the Case this Petition Concerns ("this Case) , Subject to Supersession, Retraction and/or Modification as the Developments of Providence would Evidently Require, Predicated Upon the Presumption that this Court would Lose Jurisdiction Over the Adjudication of this Case Were Joseph Younes not to Exercise Any Right of Redemption Possessed by Him on 6/21/13

Now comes Deputy Burden Bearer (Matt. 11:30) Robert J. More ("RJM") to move this Court to permit RJM to intervene into the adjudication of this case for the following reasons:

1. "No one can be an expert in all things." (Ad Sacerdoti Catholici, 1935) and RJM makes no claim to constitute any type of expert in property law, civil procedure, nor any other type of law.

2. Nonetheless, RJM cannot see how from amongst the alternative courses of conduct amongst which RJM must now make a selection in regard to the matters this document concerns ("these matters"), that the one that it will be revealed that it will have been least difficult for RJM to justify having selected would be that of the submission of this petition accompanied by an IL. Sup. Ct. Rule 298 Petition according to the formula according to which it will have been submitted to this Court on 6/21/13, for reasons a complete explication of which would be beyond the scope of this document, but in regard to which, an explication whereof will be provided upon RJM's receiving any demand wherefore.

3. The foundation upon which RJM moves to intervene into the adjudication of this case is in a most abbreviated form, explicated herein:

The Constitution is to be interpreted according to the principles of the common law (Cohen v VA, (_Cranch_, _U.S._) . The common law is a product of Anglo-American jurisprudence relating back through the Magna Charta and Assize of Clarendon to the principles, requirements and restrictions of the Charter of Liberties which was promulgated 1100 A.D. in what was then an entirely Roman Catholic, England. The basis for such common law is the principles of the natural law, written on the heart of every man (Rom. 2:17). Only to the demonstrably non-counterfeit Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to ultimately and definitively define and assess the moral character of any application of, the requirements of the natural law to any given collection of circumstances which would ever be encountered by any human being(s) between the date of the Ascension of the Lord into heaven (Matt. 28:20, et seq) until the date of his return (Matt. 25:26 et seq) delegated (Matt. 18:16) and it alone can thus conduct activity in the role which correlates to the exercise of such delegated authority. The primal precedent regarding the provision for the utilization of the instrument of intervention upon which Robert J. More relies in the intervention he endeavors to effect into the adjudication of the case this document concerns ("this case" ) is that of the Prophet Daniel in the 13th Chapter of the Biblical Book of Daniel . The SCOTUS has explained that the legitimate purpose(s) which participation in civil litigation serves are not limited to the resolution of civil disputes, but include the effecting of important public policy modifications which an individual cannot procure a political majority to effect (NAACP v Button, (_U.S._)).

4. As soon as RJM can restore the compatibility of his printer with the computer upon which this document is being composed, RJM will present various documents to this Court in support of his demand that either he be permitted to intervene into this case, that someone whose economic interests are sufficiently distanced from the interests of any of the parties involved in this case in the outcome of the adjudication of it be permitted to file an amicus curiae at this juncture into it, or that someone more capable of adequately protecting the interest of the public at large in regard to these matters than is RJM, be permitted to intervene into it in some form or other.

5. The first four issues in regard to which it has occurred to RJM that the public at large possesses (an) interest(s) in the adjudication of this case which (has) (have) not been adequately protected and vindicated in the adjudication conducted in re whereto, to this date are: 1.) the issue of the evident "unclean hands" of Deutsch Bank ("DB") in seeking a legal remedy in this or any, Court, while no legal adjudication has ever yet been conducted in regard to the issue of whether DB participated in "insider trading" in regard to the atrocities perpetrated on 9/11/01, 2.) the present condition of the counterclaims filed in this case by Mr. Daniggelis, 3.) the issue of the similitude of what transpired in these matters to what transpired in various cases referenced in a Property textbook co-authored by Prof. Jesses Dukhiemer, in regard to which the perpetration of a fraud resulted in either the entire loss of a given claim or in one case, a one million dollar punitive damages award, 4.) whether the standard and method of adjudication utilized in the adjudication of this case has or has not been morally gravely sinful and correlatively, legally fatally defective.

6. FTR, RJM is not willing to incur any cost, nor expense in regard to the filing and/or adjudication of this petition as RJM would only be willing to incur any such type debit, in an arrangement in which there would be a demonstrably minimally adequately functional adjudication system in place and operative for the purpose of the adjudication of any such type matter in order to ensure than no assessment of any type, in re whereto which might ever be executed would lack moral legitimacy.

7. RJM will endeavor to get delivered to each party still under this Court's jurisdiction a copy of this document by 6/28/13 and will provide this Court confirmation in regard whereto by 7/2/13, Providence permitting.

Wherefore, RJM herein seeks the consideration referenced in the title to this petition,

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More

Document List of 6/21/13 - RBD

1. D/L of 6/21/13 - RBD

2. "...Petition ...6/21/13...."

3. IL Supreme Court Rule 298 Petition re this Case.

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL

Chancery Division

U.S. Bank,or GMAC Banck and/or any and All Successor(s) in Interest Whereof

v Case # 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes,

Richard Daniggelis, et al

Initial Conditional Component of 6/21/13 of Petition of Robert J. More ("RJM") for Leave to Intervene into the Ajudication of the Case this Petition Concerns ("this Case) , Subject to Supersession, Retraction and/or Modification as the Developments of Providence would Evidently Require, Predicated Upon the Presumption that this Court would Lose Jurisdiction Over the Adjudication of this Case Were Joseph Younes not to Exercise Any Right of Redemption Possessed by Him on 6/21/13

Now comes Deputy Burden Bearer (Matt. 11:30) Robert J. More ("RJM") to move this Court to permit RJM to intervene into the adjudication of this case for the following reasons:

1. "No one can be an expert in all things." (Ad Sacerdoti Catholici, 1935) and RJM makes no claim to constitute any type of expert in property law, civil procedure, nor any other type of law.

3. The foundation upon which RJM moves to intervene into the adjudication of this case is in a most abbreviated form, explicated herein:

Wherefore, RJM herein seeks the consideration referenced in the title to this petition,

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More

Document List of 6/21/13 - RBD

1. D/L of 6/21/13 - RBD

2. "...Petition ...6/21/13...."

3. IL Supreme Court Rule 298 Petition re this Case.

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL

Chancery Division

U.S. Bank,or GMAC Banck and/or any and All Successor(s) in Interest Whereof

v Case # 07 CH 29738

Joseph Younes,

Richard Daniggelis, et al

Initial Proposed Release and Satisfaction of 7/1/13 From Petitioner for

Third Party Intervention Robert J. More

With the intent of expiating any and all culpability for sin in regard to

the antecedent causes of the 9/11/01 atrocity and the fact that it remains

unavenged to this day, even if such would have not been direct nor

proximate, but "only" indirect and remotely antecedent, and/or at least of

divesting any and all possible windfalls which might have resulted, and/or

might ever in the future result, from, the adjudication of 07 CH 29738, the

following proposal is herein modestly presented to each and all of the

parties involved in the adjudication of such case:

Execute an ultimate distribution of assets from a judicial sale of 1720 N.

Sedgwick, Chicago, IL, - split between: 1.) a fund monitored and controlled

by Dr. E. Vieira and the Constitutional Sheriff's and Peace Officers Assoc

in regard to a.) the restoration of citizen access to and control over the

Federal Grand Jury, b.) the payment of special prosecutors to prosecute

government officials for crimes perpetrated by them, and c.) the

compensation for judge, prosecutor, witness, grand juror and petite juror

protection programs so that it would become incomparably harder for the

domestic enemies of the u.s. of A. to murder and/or assassinate any of the

members of these groups than it now is, and, 2.) remission via five members

of Life Athletes and/or Tim Tebow, if (they), (he), would be interested in

participating in the type of venture herein considered, to whatever

children in Afghanistan who have been pemanently maimed from the activity

of military entities conducting activity under the authority of the u.s. of

A.are still alive and left with the tragic burden of having to proceed thru

the battlefield of the theatre of earthly existence with disabilities

caused by activity conducted by representatives of the u.s. of A., as,

inter alia, a first stage in the making of reparations and restitution

adequate to satisfy the requirments of the moral law in regard to a war

initiated in regard to activty in regard to which no judicial adjudication

was ever conducted demonstrating that any Afghan citizen was in any way

directly responsible for the activity which consituted the basis for the

invasion of such country by the u.s. of A., which various disbursements

will obviously exhaust whatever funds would be made from any judicial sale

conducted in regard to the case this document concerns, long before

adequate reparation will have been completed, but which will hopefully

constitute an indication of the good will of so many in America who lament

(their) (our) apportioned share(s) of the responsibility for the violence

that has been perpetrated via the government of the u.s. of A. over the

past 100 years since the patently unconstitutional Federal Reserve Act was

enacted into law in egregious violation of Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 5 and of

our commitment to make restitution to the world's innocents and posterity

for our apportioned share(s) of the blame of the dreadful condition of the

world which such unbegrudgeables have inherited.

The pre-eminent motivation of the initial proponent of this P R & S ("IP")

is to continue to expiate and make restitution for whatever constitutes his

apportioned share of the responsibility for the activity conducted via the

government of the u.s. of A and its political subdivisions and the

correlative condition of the u.s. of A. since 4/7/1967. One of the most

significant foreseeable results of the adoption of the proposal(s) included

herein would be the considerable reduction in the un-set-off material

constituting the evidentiary basis which Islamic fanatics can now use as

pretextual cause for the perpetration of violence against American

Citizens. While the motivation of the IP remains pre-eminently spiritual in

character - to expiate any culpability for having indirectly through lack

of cooperation with grace contributed to the development of the conditions

which induced that atrocity, it is correlatively the understanding of such

IP that the effecting of reduction in Anti-Occident and in particular,

Anti- u.s. of A., propaganda, would constitute a substantial contribution

to the safety and welfare of the unbegrudgeables both in the u.s. of A. and

around the world, by taking the propaganda instruments even now being used

as pretexts to strike back and or just strike, at Americans, out of the

hands of whatever Islamic fanatic proponents of violence in fact actually

exist (as distinct from American citizen members of policing entities who

frame and/or entrap gullible malcontents and fabricate "crimes" in order to

maintain the pretexts for the destruction of the protections of the

non-counterfiet version of the Rule of Law which have been used and

continue to be used to destroy the u.s. of A. and cabin it into the NWO.

Document List of 6/27/13 - RBD

1. D/L of 6/27/13 - RBD

2. ... 7/1/13 of Proposed R & S

if someone would be willing to file this and present it to the court,

and confirm such, rjm would be saved a trip downtown - otherwise,

RJM will have to go to Court in re whereto

http://users14.Jabry.com/stauffenyoudanpo121014.html

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL

Joseph Younes,

v Case # 2014-M1-701473

Richard Daniggelis, et al

Proposed Order of Amicus Petitioner/Petitioner to Intervene Robert J.

More ("RJM") of 12/10/14

1. This Court has been apprised that it is the understanding of RJM

that Defendant Daniggelis received a sum of somewhere in the

neighborhood of $33,000.00 sometime between August of 2012 and

November of 2013 and that there is an entry in the internet docket in

re the case this document concerns ("this case") indicating that he

was granted a fee waiver in this case notwithstanding such windfall

reception.

2. This Court has been apprised that RJM has been prevented from

completing any amicus petition and/or petition to intervene on a third

party basis in this case by the enforcement of an order entered on

9/6/13 in Case # 11 M1 013782 ('Order"), which howsoever devoid of

even the slightest legitimacy such order may in fact be and according

to the referenced understanding of RJM, indisputably is, and can

easily be proven to be, by the Cook County Sheriff's Dept ("CCSD")

via the preventing of RJM from accessing the documents included in

the Clerk's electronic docket for this case and its predecessor case,

and that, inter alia, RJM has filed this document and the documents

accompanying it out of an intent to mitigate the damages which it is

RJM's understanding will have to eventually be collected from the

issuer of such Order and for the purposes of, inter alia, expediting

the resolution of this case, herein orders the CCSD to immediately

discontinue the positing of any interference to RJM's filing documents

in regard to this case, which includes his includes any interference

with RJM's capacity to access the documents posted in the Clerk's

docket and any materials which RJM might need to complete such which

would be available solely in the Cook County Law Library.

3. This Court has been informed that RJM can be reached at 608

445-5181 on 12/10/14 or summonsed to the courtroom in order to answer

any questions this Court might have in regard to the matters this

document concerns.

4. This Court has been informed that RJM has been prevented from

removing possessions of his from the residence this case concerns for

several months, indeed since November of 2013 and thus if no

arrogation of authority would be necessary in order for it to order

Daniggelis to permit RJM to remove such possessions immediately, inter

alia, to enable RJM to mitigate damages incurred from such

arrangement, does herein order Daniggelis to permit the removal

whereof.

5. This Court has been informed that RJM first filed an Amicus

Petition in January of 2011 in the case from which this case evidently

emanated ("Case # 07 CH 29738"), and then filed a "Petition...to

Intervene ...." wherein in July of 2013, which was denied but in

regard to which RJM was prevented from completing a "First Superseding

Petition...to Intervene...." by the enforcement of the Order

referenced herein supra, which superseding petition would have

according to RJM's understanding cured the defects which the Court had

predicated its denial upon.

6. This Court has been informed that it can access the Table of

Contents of the ISMA website at:

"thirstforjustice.tripod.com/TableContents.html" to find copies of

this document and those which accompany it and any and all successor

and/or superseding and/or related documents which RJM or anyone else

might ever endeavor to file in regard to this case.

7. In light of the contents of the documents this Court has received

and/or the answers to questions posited to RJM today in regard to the

matters this document concerns, all matters in this case are entered

and continued to 12/31/14, so that, inter alia, no claim to any

consideration would be waived, forfeited nor relinquished in such

regard and in order that the "public", which "is entitled to

everyman's evidence" Branzburg v Hayes, (_U.S._) will not be deprived

of whatever all evidence might be contained in whatever RJM would

file in this case by such date, and RJM shall file whatever it is

which he would intend to file and which he has informed this Court he

would have filed by this date, if not long before, but for the

interference encountered as referenced herein from the CCSD's

enforcement of the Order ______________________________, or in a

scenario in which such relief would not be granted, in deference to

whatever legitimate reliance issues might be implicated by any denial

of any relief referenced herein, RJM shall be provided until

___________________, to file documents preserving for review the

issue of whether any such type denial could possibly have been

justified and to submit to this Court any and all constitutional

and/or equitable issues which RJM would understand he would be

burdened to get "pressed and passed upon" Webb v Webb (_U.S._) in this

trial court proceeding in order to prevent the relinquishment of any

and all constitutionally protected claims to reveiw which might be

relinquished were such not to have been so presented in the first

instance in this trial court __________________, or some other relief

is granted in this regard, explicated as follows:

________________________________.

http://users14.Jabry.com/stauffenyoudandl121014.html

Circuit Court of Cook County, IL

Joseph Younes,

v Case # 2014-M1-701473

Richard Daniggelis, et al

Petitioner to Intervene/Amicus Petitioner Robert J. More's ("RJM"'s)

Initial Component of 12/10/14 of Petition to Intervene Into/File an

Amicus Petition in, the Case this Document Concerns ("this Case"), of

12/10/14, to be Retracted, Modified, and/or Superseded as the

Dispensation of Providence Might Require in the Future Accompanied by

Notice that RJM Definitely Intends to File Superseding Components

Whereof

Now comes RJM to respectfully move this Court to grant leave for RJM

to Intervene into this case and in explanation and support whereof,

RJM avers and explains as follows:

1. An order issued on 9/6/13 in Case # 11 M1 013782 which purports to

prohibit RJM from filing any new case in the Circuit Court of Cook

County IL, until certain requirements would have been satisfied,

(which RJM is convinced is entirely void as having been issued via a

process so deficient in the protection(s) of the Rule of Law as

promulgated in the Constitution of the u.s. of A. as to be fatally so

(Brown v MS (_U.S._), Irvin v Dowd (_U.S._) et al,) makes no mention

of the filing of any petition(s) of the type this document concerns,

but RJM has included this notice so that the Issuer of such Order will

not be tempted to use this document as another pretext via which to

retaliate against RJM for RJM's burden-bearing activities or to

otherwise encumber RJM beyond the already intolerable burdens of

having to continue to conduct activity in the police state which this

Country has become, realzing that if the devil is highly enough

committed to get rid of someone, that he will tempt those who do his

bidding to do such bidding in any given instance, regardless of the

innocence of any given target of any temptation ever issued, in re

which the example of the plight of Jesus himself is the prototypical

example in this regard.

2. The Amicus Petition RJM filed in January of 2011, and the Petition

to Intervene which RJM filed in July of 2013 in Case # 07 CH 29738 are

incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein and a

partial understanding of the basis for RJM's filing this document can

be procred from the consideration whereof.

3. Constraints, burdens and exigencies not eliminable solely via

RJM's own efforts, some of which are referenced in the proposed order

which accompanies this motion, evidently necessitate its being

truncated here subject to the completion whereof, once such

encumbrances would have been removed.

Wherefore, RJM herein respectfully moves this Court to grant the

relief delineated in the proposed order which accompanies this

document.

Respectfully submitted, Robert J. More

http://users14.Jabry.com/stauffenccsdradarcanopvsdl121014.html see also: thirstforjustice.tripod.com/TableContents.html via which to locate documents and oral chronicling(s) this document collection concerns

Combined Proposed Verified Statement(s)of 12/28/14 of Robert J. More, Andjelko Galic, John Dzendrowski, Judge Sidney Jones, Cook County Sheriff's Dept ("CCSD"), Sheriff T. Dart, Lt. Marundi, Sgt. Garrett, Deputy Cano, Mr. Balthasar Regalado, Ronald Baker, CCCC, IL C.J. T. Evans, Lorenz Lesson, Regarding all Documents Listed in the "D/L 12/10/14 - RBD" Included Herein on 12/10/14 Regarding Activity Conducted on 11/9/14 thru 12/17/14, and by RJM thru 12/29/14 in Regard to the CCSD's enforcement of order(s) Issued in Case # 11 M1 013782 and related Matters

Under penalties of perjury pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1746 and 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I, Robert J. More ("RJM"), Atty Andjelko Galic, Galic Secretary Karena ..., Galic Assistant ..., John Dzendrowski, Cook County, IL, ("CC") Judge Sidney Jones, Cook County Sheriff's Dept ("CCSD"), Sheriff T. Dart, Lt. Marundi, Sgt. Garrett, and Deputy Cano, Mr. Balthasar Regalado, Richard Danigellis, Atty Peter King, CC Judge Scully, CCCC, IL Courtroom Deputy Clerk for Room 1302 of the RDC, herein

aver that I. I am over 18 years of age, reside in Cook County, IL and if called to testify in regard to the matters circled by me herein, could competently testify upon percipient knowledge in re whereot and that, 1.) the circled components of what is contained herein infra respective to the components of such in regard to which I possess percipient knowledge do in fact represent the developments in regard to which I am cognizant which did in fact transpire in the period referenced herein that 2.) in regard to the documents in issue, that I did either receive copies whereof or have succeeded in accessing such in one of the websites of the ISMA in which such has been posted as of 1/5/15, that 3.) I have been notified by RJM that it is his intention that the location of the oral chroniclings of these matters which RJM cannot locate on 12/28/14 will have been posted by 1/5/15 in the Table of Contents of the website whose URL is: "thirstforjustice.tripod.com" that 4.) the circled components of what is contained herein constitute my recollection of what transpired in regard to the matters this document concerns, that 5.) I understand that RJM is demanding that I circle such components on any document I would complete in this regard:

1. Numerous notices and/or demands have been posted on the door knob and windows of the residence at 1720 N. Sedgwick. St., Chicago, IL ("1720") since 11/9/14 in which have been contained demands for access to the possession of Robert J. More ("RJM") in 1720 which is the abode in which R. Daniggelis ("RBD") has been residing without paying so much as a penny of mortgage or interest, nor real estate taxes since at least the filing date of the chancery case which this document's concerns concern in 2007.

2. Numerous attempts have been made since 11/9/14, to contact RBD by RJM at 312 642-0044, but that number has remained inaccessible attributable to a voice mail kept filled with messages.

3. The voice mail at 312 217-5433 - Galic's number has also been kept filled in that period.

4. On 12/28/14 at 14:25-28, voice mails of both such numbers were filled, rendering the delivery of any message to either one impossible.

5. The contents of paragraphs numbered 6-25 herein is contained on a file in RJM's Whirl 2 Cell Phone chronicling the developments in re these matters from 12/9-12/14 of 2014 at around 1300, which was inaccessible on 12/27/14 but will have been posted providence permitting at a URL which will be accessible via accessing the "thirstforjustice.tripod.com/TableContents.html" URL and clicking on the "Daniggellis Intervention Proposed Verified Statement(s) re 12/10/14 Endeavor to File Documents and Subsequent Developments" or something to that effect, entry.

6-22. RJM's trip to Galic's office on 12/10, activity conducted at the Fed Ex on LaSalle St. in re endeavors to contact court, and such type matters are chronicled in the video referenced in entry # 5 herein.

23. At about 15:00 on 12/10/14 RJM dialed the phone number Deputy Cano had provided RJM to the office in which Lt. Marundi is the supervisor in the basement of the RDC and Lt. Marundi answered the phone.

24. RJM informed her that "This conversation is being recorded..." at which time, she replied "I do not permit anyone to record me." and the phone went dead.

25. Inter alia, endeavoring to mitigate any and all damages incurred from this deprivation of the constitutionally protected right recognized in "People v Clark", RJM redialed that number and Deputy Ssnders answered the phone and when RJM explained the purpose of this call, tle line ended up dead at about 22 seconds into such call.

26. On 12/14/14 at between 1300 and 1330 or whereabouts, Galic procured RJM's initial and partial list of possessions still in 1720 as of that date in the lobby of the 136 whatever N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL bldg ("136").

27. RJM and Balthasar Regalado ("Ed") conducted a conversation between themselves and what RJM understood at that juncture was the clerk in room 1302 of the RDC, in which RJM discussed the instructions on the document provided Ed along with the documents RJM had provided him to get stamped, filed and delivered on that date.

28. RJM called Ed a number of times in the following minutes, informing Ed that RJM had to go to the LaSalle St. Fed Ex, because it was raining on RJM outside of the 136 N. bldg.

29. When RJM and Ed finally made phone connection at around 1330, Ed informed RJM that he was on his way to Indiana for an appointment and that he would have to come back to complete any business in regard to these matters on some other day and the connection was lost before RJM could remind Ed that Ed had RJM's orange bag and other possessions in his vehicle at that juncture, which RJM needed then.

30. RJM delivered a voice mail to Ed complaining of lack of access to such possessions shortly whereafter.

31. On the night of 12/14/14, RJM contacted Ed again at 708 890-1847 and discussed the developments of 12/14/14.

32. At about 2130, Ed delivered RJM the possessions referenced herein.

33. RJM then inquired re the presence of the motions and proposed order re the RBD intervention on the seat of Ed's car.

34. Ed explained that he did not get such documents stamped nor delivered to the no fee filing box, nor to room 1302.

35. RJM then explained what had transpired between the time RJM had transmitted such documents to Ed accompanied by specific instructions for the processing whereof and that specific moment and explained that it was RJM's understanding that Ed was bound to complete the task which he had induced RJM to understand he would complete on 12/14/14.

36. RJM then re-explained such task and that it needed to be completed asap and Ed informed RJM that he would complete it asap, which RJM stated was by 12/15 or 12/16 of 2014.

37. On 12/16/14 Ed informed RJM that he had completed the task including delivering a copy of the petition and proposed order to the Judge in Room 1302 via the clerk for such room but did not have any stamped copy for RJM as he had No fee filed 2 copies of those documents rather than one.

38. Fast forward to 12/26 on which date RJM transmitted an email to Galic on the email address which RJM has possessed for him for several years relating to these matters.

39. On 12/28/14, RJM began completing the collection of documents of which this statement is a component part at about 1300 and it is now 20:50 from which time must be subtracted 3 hours for a nap, travel, and washing.

______________________________________, _______________

Name Title Date

Composed by Robert J. More, P.O. Box 6926, Chicago, IL 60680, (863) 688-9880, anselm45@gmail.com

thirstforjustice.tripod.com/TableContents.html - entry constituting reference to posting of this collection of documents

Document List of 12/10/14 - Danigellis (D/L 12/10/14)

1. D/L 12/10/14 X

2. …Proposed Verified Statement of 12/28/14 …. X

3. Combined Verification of ...D/L of 12/10/14....

4. Internet Docket for the Dispute Resolution Project this Document Concerns (danigdock.html)

5. List of Accronyms and URL's used in Documents Included in this List and Notice re Accessibility of Documents Referenced in Any Such Documents X

6. Notice re Accessibility of Documents -if the documents referenced herein would not be accessible at the URL listed herein, they can be accessed at: "http://www.thirstforjustice.net" www.thirstforjustice.net , or at fortunecity.com, Gordon W. Watts.com or via inserting the d/f: aloysiusalphonsusanselm12 into whatever internet search engine a given individual would ever be using or via contacting gww1210@aol.com, or anselm45@gmail.com.

7. Commentary re Moral and Legal Significance of PVS of 12/10/14 and Demands of 12/10/14

8. Demands of RJM of 12/10/14 - complete version to follow

9. Notice of 12/28/14 of Evident Incurrment of Liability - Criminal/Civil, of Damages, List of Malefactors Liable re developments of Daniggelis 12/10/14, and Burden to Mitigate Damages Upon RJM - complete version to follow

10. Time and Expense Record for Composition and Processing of this document - 12/10/14 - already - 5 hours including all measures undertaken to adequately mitigate damages, 12/11 -..., 12/15 - 1100- 1315 ...plus 1/4 hour at night, 12/17 - 1/4 hour plus time to make and post videos and service of documents/notifications

11. Instructions

All Documents adjacent to which there is an “X” included herein supra have been delivered to ....on ....

Accronym, Phrase Abbreviation and URL List for D/L of 12/10/14 Doc. # 5 in D/L of 12/10/14

1. Authority in Support of this Proposition Yet to be Included Herein - ("AYTBI").

2. CCSD - Cook County, IL, Sheriff's Dept.

3. RDC - Richard Daley Center

4. CCCC - Circuit Court of Cook County, IL

5. The Matters referenced herein ("these matters" - "TM")

6. The case this document concerns ("this case" - "TC")

7. 18 USC 242 - 242

8. 720 ILCS 5/33-3 - 33-3

9. PVS - Proposed Verified Statement

10. RBD - Richard Bruce Daniggelis

Instructions for D/L 12/10/14 - Daniggelis

<<<<<<<subject to exraction or completion as of 12/28/14 -Proposed Verified Statement(s) ("PVS") of CCSD Sgt. Radar ("SR"), CCSD Deputy Cano (Robert J. More -("RJM))of 12/10/14 in Regard to Interactions Between SG and RJM of 11/21/13 and 11/26/13 and of Delivery of this Document on 12/10/14

I, Sgt. Garrett, (Wakefield or Wakeman) _______________ obviously being over 18 years of age and being a (Sgt)(...) in the CCSD, stationed at the RDC in Chicago, IL (Robert J. More -("RJM))(resident of Chicago, IL w/o any residence) under penalties provided by law pursuant to the provisions of 28 US C 1746, and 735 ILCS 5/109, certify that I possess percipient knowledge(that is – knowledge of evidence procured through any of the 5 senses) of the developments, events, transactions and communications which transpired in regard to the matters referenced in the title and/or in the body of this document and that if called to testify under oath or affirmation in regard thereto, that I could testify competently in such regard:

1. On 12/10/14, a 69 1/2" 182 lb (likely smaller by now) caucasian male, who had previously identified himself as Robert J. More, attired in Winter Coat and Sweat Pants, accessed Room CL 132 of the RDC.

2. He informed whomever was stationed at the counter of such room that he had in his possession a collection of documents to be delivered to the Office of the CCSD and also, particularly to Sgt. Garrett and ...Wakefield, in regard to which he was seeking either a stamped copy whereof for his own records or a receipt confirming the reception of the delivery whereof and a signature in re the matters reference in such document as transpiring on 11/21 and/or 11/26 of 2013,

3. This Document concerns a recapitulation of the developments transpiring in the interactions of 11/21 and 11/26 of 2013 between RJM and Sgt. Garrett.

4. RJM's initial recapitulation of such interactions are posted here: jackccsdgarr112113 - : http://youtu.be/pOMAyZj8BAw, and here: CCSDgarr112613grifdocser - : http://youtu.be/2jcYeDrllyI .

5. In the interests of thoroughness and accuracy of the presentation of such matters as are referenced in the videos referenced herein supra, invitation is herein extended for anyone interested in the matters this document concerns to produce his or her version of what transpired in such interactions, to post such in "youtube" and provide the URL's whereto to RJM as soon as such can be provided, so that any such postings can be included in any projects of which the posting of the videos referenced herein are now, or ever will become, a component part.

6. I have received notice that RJM is claiming that he and everyone entitled to consideration of whatever sort and measure from RJM (has) (have) been deprived of a number of unalienable natural law rights, protected by the Constitution of the u.s. of A. in regard to the matters this document concerns and that the demands which accompanies this document has been posited in order to prevent the deprivation of any such type rights in the future via the elimination of the conditions and priorities, the existence of which evidently resulted in the deprivations referenced herein supra.

7. I have been informed that the production of the documents and videos referenced herein and the delivery of such documents by RJM has been effected as what RJM has understood has constituted a component of RJM's bearing of the component of the burden referenced in Matt. 11:30 which RJM has understood that he has been burdened to bear and that it is RJM's understanding that the notification, demands(s) and confirmation of the reception of the delivery of documents referenced herein has relieved RJM of any burden to which RJM would have been subjected in the absence of RJM's conducting such activities and that RJM understands that he is burdened to procure compensation for the expenses to which he has been unjustifiably put in regard to such activity, from those whose unjustified activity has proximately necessitated RJM's incurring such expenses and loss of time.

_________________________, __________________

Name Date >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Demands of Robert J. More (RJM") on Behalf of Everything Warmblooded, but Obviously, not by Any Express Designation of 12/10/14

1. Robert J. More herein demands that the CCSD and all of its members either stipulate to be bound by RJM's version of any interaction between RJM and any member of the CCSD which would ever transpire in any arrangement in which any CCSD would be conducting activity either pursuant to any legitimate authority and/or under the color of law or to discontinue interfering in any way with any production of any audio and/or audio/video of any activity conducted upon the property of the R. Daley Center, Chicago, IL which would not be conducted in any restroom, defined otherwise as "would be conducted somewhere other than in a restroom" [and if no such consideration would be provided to either provide an explanation justifying any non-provision whereof or else stipulate that any non-provision whereof could only be attributed to malice] (what is included in brackets herein ("[]") is the "closer").

2. RJM herein demands that the CCSD confirm that it is committed to defer to the the never overturned, nor superseded, authority of In re Oliver (_U.S._) in regard to the limitations of (direct) (summary) criminal contempt being restricted solely to activity conducted in the presence of a Judge, which would have been observed by a given Judge and would have been ordered to either interference with the "due administration of justice" or the "lessening of the dignity of the Court".

3. RJM herein demands that the CCSD require its agents to sign verified statements regarding the content of a given interaction in any instance in which a demand wherefore would have been issued in regard to any interaction which would not have been recorded for whatever reason or else to sign such type statement stipulating to RJM's version whereof for the purpose of any initiative and/or activity which would require a reproduction of any such interaction - closer.

4. RJM herein demands that the CCSD inform the entirety of its members that it is the informed understanding of RJM that no one is ever required to submit to any false arrest &/or imprisonment ("false arrest"), and that there is no assurance that any endeavor to falsely arrest and/or imprison RJM would not result in both the encountering of resistance from RJM and/or anyone RJM might summons to his assistance, which might result, howwosever unintendedly in any given instance, in permanent disability and/or death to any government crime perpetrator, and/or the institution of measures ordered to the administration of retribution to anyone and everyone ever perpetrating any false arrest, who would have been informed in any given instance that it would have been RJM's understanding that a given false arrest could not (be) (have been) morally justified, and confirm that such notice has been provided to such members.

5. RJM demands access to the Clerk's Electronic Docket and Case Files and the Cook County Law Libary adequate to enable RJM to continue to prosecute and/or defend various cases and issues, including the burden of getting the Orders issued in 11 M1 0137892 which the CCSD has been enforcing, rescinded.

6. RJM demands that the CCSD inform its members that RJM has never issued any threat of violence to anyone and that it is RJM's understanding that the Orders referenced herein are entirely devoid of any legitimacy.

7. Until such orders would have been rescinded, RJM demands that any CCSD member ever enforcing such, either stipulate to RJM's version of what would have transpired in any given interaction ever in issue for the types of purposes referenced in previous entries in the list of which this entry is an entry wherein or else to be subject to an audio and/or audio/video recorded examination of any and all alleged bas(is) (es) for any enforcement whereof.

8. RJM demands that the CCSD require its members to provide written and/or recorded confirmations of the reception of Any and All "Notices of Incurrment of Damages and Burden to Mitigate Damages Upon RJM" which RJM would ever posit, orally and/or written to any member(s) of the CCSD and provide a written confirmation of the execution of the notification of the entirety of its members that RJM and anyone else ever unjustifiably injured by any activity of any member of the CCSD are always bound to, first, endeavor to prevent the incurrment of any damages, and then to mitigate any damages which would ever be incurred, and that anyone found to have unjustifiably interfered with any such type mitigation of damages project ever instituted would incur criminal and tort liability for any unjustified interference wherewith in any given instance in which any such type interference would have been posited - closer.

9. RJM demands that the CCSD instruct its subordinates on the distinction between direct and indirect criminal contempt, confirm that it has executed such measure and then confirm that no order presently alleged to apply to activity of RJM could ever be legitimately enforced except via the process in place for the adjudications of indirect criminal contempt, and that the legitimate application of summary criminal contempt can never exceed the scope wherefore referenced in Oliver herein supra, unless and until either the SCOTUS would overturn or supersede Oliver or some type of statute or supreme court rule would have been enacted effectively modifying the Oliver threshold, and that the inclusion of this entry in this document could in no way be construed to constitute any type of admission by RJM that any such order referenced herein could ever be legitimately executed in any arrangement.

10. RJM herein demands that the entirety of the members of the CCSD be informed that it is RJM's informed understanding that until the CCCC, IL can be closed and/or abolished, the ultimate best interests of all of those whose interests this document concerns, including each and all of the members of the CCSD would be best served by the effecting of a "declaration of unconstitutionality 'as applied' of the entirety of the contents of the criminal code presently operative in the State of IL in regard to any and all activity which would ever be conducted by RJM in regard to the just remedying of any injury ever unjustifiably caused him and those entitled to consideration from RJM".

11. RJM herein demands that the entirety of the members of the CCSD be informed that complaint forms regarding activity ever conducted by any member of the ISMA are available at the URL included herein supra and that all complaints ever received are posted in the ISMA Br. #4 website within 365 days of the reception whereof and that the assessment and processing whereof is audited by an entity entirely independent of the ISMA, whose findings are accessible to anyone seeking them who would possess an adequate security profile in all cases and in most cases, would be accessible by anyone interested wherein. .

12. RJM demands that the CCSD and Sgt. Garrett and ...Wakefield stipulate to the contents of the videos posted at youtube referenced herein supra and provide RJM a signed copy of the "PVS of 12/10/14" included herein supra, and closer.

13. RJM herein demands that the CCSD either demonstrate that the the Orders issued in Case # 11 M1 013782 possess legitimacy or discontinue any enforcement whereof, in consideration of the fact that RJM is herein informing it and its members that the content of any such orders restricting activity conducted by RJM beyond restrictions applicable to citizens not subject to such type order(s) are in RJM's informed understanding entirely lacking in legitimacy, as inter alia having been entered without the protections of adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in a hearing that would be fair and not a sham, which are supposed to be provided to all Citizens of the u.s. of A. by the Constitution of the u.s. of A.

Electronic Recording Device - ORR

Notice of 12/10/14 of Incurrment of Damages and Burden to Mitigate Damages Upon RJM

Incurrers of Criminal and/or Tort Liability in re this matter: CCA 7 C. J. D. wood usdc cj and exec comm,Soetoro, Holder, USMS, castillo re fed grand jury indep, daniggelis, Andjelko Galic, John Dzendrowski, Judge Sidney Jones, Cook County Sheriff's Dept ("CCSD"), Sheriff T. Dart, Lt. Marundi, Deputy Cano, CCCC, IL C.J. T. Evans, - Dzendrowski - promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance aggravated by malice $1000 - $1400 consequential damages plus punitives, Galic - disparagement, suspected induction of breach by Dzendrowski, suspected inducement of breach by Danigellis, tortious interference w/ ..., Daniggellis - same consequential damages as Dzend... for 12/9 - 12/28/14 period plus consequences to RJM of deprivation of access to possessions, Marundi - deprivation of right to gather information pursuant to U.S. Const. Amendment #1 - as connected to rights to free speech and right to petition govt for redress of grievances, actionable via 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983 and depending upon the gravity of the consequences of the offense - 720 ILCS 5/33-3, - complete enumeration of incurrments of damages to follow, hopefully by 1/28/15

<<<<<<<

RJM herein asserts that it is RJM's understanding that RJM is incurring unjustified injury from 1.) the CCSD's refusal to comply with the express requirements of ACLU v Alvarez (_F.3d_) and People v Clark & People v Melongo (_IL 3d _)and refrain from interfering with RJM's making of electronic recjordings of activity conducted by its members on public property, 2.) The notification of an intent to enforce court orders against RJM outside of the restrictions imposed by In re Oliver (_U.S._) on the use of summary criminal contempt, 3.) Denial of Access to a.) the Clerk's Electronic Docketing System, and Case Files, and b.) the Cook County Law Library,