Motion And Proposed Order For Declaration Of Unconstitutionality As Applied Of Provisions Of Criminal Codes - Template

Plaintiff’s Motion and Proposed Order of …

Now comes the Plaintiff (“RJM”) to respectfully move this Court to provide signatures in the spaces adjacent to the entries included herein infra or explanations justifying not doing so in any case in which this Court would not provide a signature adjacent to a given entry, in order to ensure that the Court’s moral liability regarding its activity therein would not remain not adequately covered and that if it would, that such lamentable conjectural condition could in no way be imputed to any culpable negligence attributable to RJM and in explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows:

Declaration of Unconstitutionality of… Criminal Code(s) Regarding Activity of …Robert J. More

1. (It is herein proposed that any clause contained herein which would cause any Court to refuse to sign this document be stricken over the explicitly confirmed and acknowledged objection of the proponent thereof, so that no clause, the inclusion of which would render it impossible for such proponent to presently procure a signature upon this document, would be left herein such that the signature herein sought would remain unprocured, without in the endeavor - to procure a signature on a document which might facilitate the procurement of some form of relief and/or the elimination of some burden - there being present the making of any unjustified concessions to the activity of the devil, and such that it could never be claimed that the proposition was unjustifiably conciliatory and/or characterized by concessions which the proponent thereof would possess no authority to make, acknowledging that in exigent circumstances wherein a signature upon some modified version of any original proposal could facilitate the procurement of a benefit or the elimination of an evil, the effect of which would evidently be more beneficial to the interests of the Catholic Church than would be whatever condition would be left in place as a consequence of whatever injury or loss might accrue to such Church from the non-inclusion of any clause in whatever declaration would have been issued which would not include the entirety of whatever would have been included in the proposal originally offered, it is the proponent of this postulation’s understanding that the procurement of a document in some measure modified would not be unjustified, but that great solicitude must necessarily be exercised in this regard, lest non-negotiables end up being unjustifiably conceded and/or otherwise compromised.


By the authority vested in this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the united States of America {or by any other authority and/or any authority howsoever described (include any other formulation here:_____________________)} as the derivation of such authority has been transmitted down through the centuries of the history of Western Civilization, through the succession of generations reaching back prior to the signing of the Magna Charta on June 15, 1215 A.D. to the signing of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 A.D., and in consideration of the consideration and protections to which the people of the united States of America (“u.S.A”, “u.S. of A.”))(or any other formulation describing the citizens of the 50 states that presently constitute the Union and/or Republic of the u.S. of A. howsoever described and/or appelled) are entitled, correlative to the moral liability to which such persons are subject under the immutable requirements of the natural law as such as been inscribed upon the heart of every man (Romans 1:15 et al) and that any arrangement at any juncture in place imputable to whatever combination of contributing causes which would effectively constitute a deprivation of the measures of consideration guaranteed to all citizens of such Union and/or Republic by amongst other provisions of such Constitution, those of the Prohibition on the Establishment of a Religion, Prohibition on the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion, Right to Petition, Due Process, Supremacy and/or Guaranty Clauses of such Constitution and/or the prohibition on slavery explicitly promulgated in the Thirteenth Amendment to such Constitution, the prohibition on the denial of the equal protection of the laws and the implicit prohibition present in the Fourteenth Amendment to such Constitution upon arrogations, encroachments, usurpations, infringements, transgressions and/or predations which would ever constitute any type of deprivation of any of the liberties English speaking persons have been accorded through the centuries at least on paper as constituent components of “ordered liberty” by their government(s) as such are actionable under what is classified as substantive due process in the jurisprudence of the SCOTUS, this Court herein declares that all state, county and municipal laws are unconstitutional as such might be applied and/or as any member of any government entity might ever endeavor to apply such in the absence of the issuance of this order to any measure which Robert J. More might implement and/or to any endeavor in which RJM might ever participate which would have been implemented and/or undertaken, whether in a given case, the intents and purposes of a given agenda and/or project concerning such matters, would have been published, promulgated and/or declared explicitly or not, for purposes of the rectification via vigilante and/or military measures of any injustice(s) which it is RJM’s informed understanding presently prevails in the matters which the case this document concerns in _________________________________________ concerns and that further no member of any policing entity may endeavor to take Robert J. More (“RJM”) into custody pursuant to any allegation of contempt of any type without RJM’s first being provided a hearing in regard to any such type charge via the filing and adjudication of a 28 USC 2241 petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to be presented in the first instance to either U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (“7th C.C.A”) Judge(s) Daniel Manion, Diane Sykes or Kenneth Ripple should any such type charge have been postulated in any proceeding ever conducted in the States of IL, WI or IN and before either Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) Chief Justice J. Roberts or SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito, should any such type charge have been postulated in any proceeding conducted in any state other than IL, WI or IN, with provision for the adjudication of any such type charge that might ever be postulated in IL, WI or IN, before one of the two SCOTUS Justices listed herein supra, should none of the 7th C.C.A. Judges listed supra be available in a given case to adjudicate any habeas corpus petition which might ever be submitted to any of them and/or the clerk of the 7th C.C.A.

_________________________, _____________

Signature Date


This Court, ever mindful, that the authority which it exercises in this case, has ultimately emanated from the consequences of a commitment to use force by the English Peasants at Runneyemede in 1215, were King John III not to grant them the concessions which they then and there demanded as being the minimal consideration which they could accept, without in accepting anything, less incurring a most egregiously sinful complicity in deprivations and predations, the likes of which no human being, created in God’s image and likeness, who would hope to retain a claim to procure the reward promised to those who refuse to make any unjustified concessions to evil & to avoid the punishment guaranteed to those who do not require themselves to refuse to make any such type of unjustified concessions, and who otherwise satisfy the requirements of the moral law in the conduct of their mortal lives at least to the extent necessary to ensure that their moral liability would not have been left not adequately covered in any substantial area in regard to which their activity in the earthly theatre would ultimately be assessed (Matt. 25:26 et al), could justifiably accept from any sovereign, and the actual use of force by those British American Colonists who in 1775, refused to make the same type of unjustified concessions to the predations and deprivations which the then reigning British Sovereign was at that time perpetrating upon them; acknowledges that no morally legitimate formula concerning the relations of people and their government(s), could ever be proposed which would not include provision for vigilantism and/or domestic insurrection in situations in which means less likely to result in the types of serious consequences which has always caused the Catholic Church to insist that remedies for the rectification of injustices and the resolution of disputes alternative to those involving the use of force, always be exhausted prior to anyone’s resorting to force for the accomplishment of such objectives, howsoever legitimate and necessary the use of force for such purposes might be in a given instance, be, but for the following reasons, asserts that the conditions which would have to be present in order for force to be justifiably utilized in these matters described supra are not present at this time either because conditions independent of RJM’s control render the use of force unnecessary and hence unjustified which are identified as follows __________________________________-, __________________________________, ____________________ (use additional paper as needed) or because RJM has not proven to this Court’s satisfaction that he possesses the requisite combination of adequately adjusted priorities and moral fiber for this Court to now provide him the type of “Declaration of Unconstitutionality as Applied…RJM….” which this Court would understand and consider that RJM would have had to have demonstrated in order for it to provide RJM such type order _________________________________, and that further, correlative to this assertion that RJM simply has not yet demonstrated the possession of such type priorities and moral fiber to this Court’s satisfaction, this Court herein informs RJM that if RJM would complain that it would be RJM’s position that such position of the Court could not on the whole be justified, that RJM would be welcome to explain to this Court the basis upon which RJM would posit such claim, so that upon the consideration of any such postulations as RJM might present in this regard, this Court could without further delay and the imposition of any further burden upon RJM in this regard, issue the type of order RJM has sought herein, or that RJM would have to satisfy the following exact requirements and/or make the following exact modifications in his priorities and/or modus operandi in order to procure the type of order which he has herein sought ___________________________, ___________________________, _____________________-(use additional paper as necessary).

2. This Court is reluctant to provide any affirmative endorsement of the nature proposed herein, but at this juncture would at least provide a nihil obstat – indicating that it could not see any reason why some Court of higher authority than this ought have any reluctance to provide a signature on the document or something similar in regard to the activity of Robert J. More in general (subject to the following restrictions, limitations and prohibitions) _________________, ______________, _____________.

Last revised 9/15/08, next scheduled revision 8/15/10, any input for the next revision would be much appreciated