Document List of 3/4/14 in Griffith

1. D/L of 3/4/14

2. Component of 2/27 of motion of 12/4/13, which RJM could not afford to get printed et al on 2/28/14

3. Record of time and expenses 2/27, 28, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3, .... , plus print, file, post and serve

Circuit Court of Cook County IL

More et al

v 11 CH 12339

Griffith, et al

Verified First superseding combined component of 3/2/14 of Component of 2/27/14 of motion of 12/4/13, filed subject to retraction, modification and/or further supersession, (which document RJM referenced as "unabbreviated component whereof" in "Component of 2/27/14...." of this motion which was actually no fee filed on 2/28/14, accompanied by notice of intent to get this document posted by 3/3/14), filed under protest ..., [with endeavor to deliver copies whereof to all Defendants involved in this case chronicled, Providence permitting, by 3/4/14 at: "" and after 3/4/14 at: "thir.../grifdocupro3414.html"] including notice of commitment to get this unabbreviated component whereof posted at: "thir.../grifdl3414.html" by 3/3/14 so that such online version of motion can be adjudicated on 3/4/14, w/o RJM's having to incur printing costs in re whereto which would be outside of RJM's present budget, for this Court to either simply now declare the "unconstitutionality as applied" of the contents of the IL Criminal Code to activity which could be conducted by RJM and/or RJM and Affiliates for the purpose of adequately remedying the unjustifibly caused injuries this case concerns w/o RJM and/or Any Affiliates of RJM having to participate in any military engagement in order to effect such end, or else to continue all issues pending in this case as of 3/4/14 to a date after the issues addressed in the "More et al v Martin et al.," IL SCR 383 motion presently, and/or any motion Regarding the Matters this Case Concerns, which would by 6/27/14, be, pending, in the IL Sup. Ct. would have been adjudicated by that Court or, if necessary, the SCOTUS, which also constitutes a motion via IL Sup. Ct. Rule 183, if necessary, which may in the future be also set for 6/27/14, in a scenario in which such issues would still not have been adequately adjudicated by that date, filed according to a formula via which any justified striking and/or disregard of any component whereof would not result in any justified striking and/or disregard of any contents whereof not stricken or disregarded, including notice of modification of Notice of motion filed on 12/4/13 in re this case, Errata for prior components of this document, without Extensive Discussion what Has been Left in and what has been Left out Whereof, in terms of RJM's apprehended burden to continue to prosecute this case to the minimal extent, given the entirety of the circumstances encountered by RJM since this Court was last addressed by him, necessary to retain the claim to ultimately participate in a contra-predatory vigilante remedying of the unjustifiably caused injuries it concerns which it is RJM's informed understanding that RJM has possessed in regard to each and all of such injuries from the various junctures at which each and all of such injuries, respectively, were incurred by RJM, including both any and all such type injuries incurred by RJM that originally resulted in the filing of this case and from the defense and/or adjudication whereof, as well, according to the principles of Natural Law Morality, as incorporated into Magna Charta Clause 61, its Superseding Documents up to and Through the Constitutions and Statutes Applicable to the Adequate Resolution of the Matters this Document Concerns and the Magisterially Protected Postulations of the Roman Catholic Religion in Regard to the Application of the Requirements of Among Other Commandments of the Decalogue, Those of the Fourth Commandment Whereof, Postulated Through the Papal Christmas Message of 1956, Applicable to Such Resolution, In Which the Entirety of the Content of Any and All Motions Filed Previously in this Case is Incorporated Herein by Reference as if Fully Set Forth Herein to the Extent any Given Demand Included Wherein, Respectively, would not have Been Superseded by Any Given Demand Subsequently Posited in Regard to Any Given Measure of Consideration Ever Sought in Any Such Motion(s) and in Which RJM Notifies This Court that RJM Would Seriously Consider Accepting Any Type of Entitlement which This Court would Direct Any Entity to Provide RJM in Order to Enable RJM to Complete the Prosecution of this Case at a Pace Substantiallly More Rapid than the Pace at Which, Beset by the Lack of Any Shelter and a Shoe String Budget, RJM has Been Prosecuting this Case, Particularly in Light of Hardships Encountered from What Has Constituted the Coldest Winter RJM can Ever Remember in Chicago, IL, Given that the Code of Conduct According to which RJM has Committed Himself to Continue to Conduct all Activity Conducted by RJM Does Not Permit the Acceptance of Entitlements, Including the Appointment of An Attorney to Complete the Prosecution of this Case, Provided that Any Such Appointee Would Function Solely as an Agent, Not a Principal, Completed w/o a Word Processing Program that Possesses a Capitalization Function [End of Title]

Now comes RJM to respectfully move this Court to grant the consideration referenced in the title to this motion and in explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows:

1. The errata to prior components of this motion are included herein as follows:

a.) the sentence stating: "Providence permitting, 9/6 or 9/7 of 2013...." in the "...Component of 11/4/13...." incorporated into this motion is herein retracted.

b.) the clause in the title of the "Initial Component of a Multi-component Verified Motion of 12/4/13...." beginning with: "Order Issued in [...] in Which This Court Exercised" is herein modified to: "Order Issued in CCCC, IL Case # 10 M1 015265 in November of 2013, in Which The Court in that Case Exercised".

2. It is now 23:45 on 3/2/14 and the way in which developments have transpired since RJM filed the "Component of 2/27/14..." of this Motion with RJM now having to face the burden of having to spend another zero degree night outside, and the need to get his possessions relocated from a storage unit whose now raised cost far exceeds RJM's budget before 9:00 on 3/5/14, rather than what RJM had understood until 17:50 on 2/28/14 to be a 3/13/14 moving deadline, has left RJM understanding that that alternative which it will evidently be least difficult for RJM to have chosen amongst those available at this juncture from amongst which RJM has no choice except to make some choice in re whereto, at that juncture at which RJM will have to provide an accounting of all activity conducted by him (Heb. 9:27, Matt. 25:26 et seq.), is to leave this document in the condition in which it is presently found to be, subject to superseding it at some future juncture, should either any explanation be demanded in regard to the priorities according to which activity conducted by RJM in re the prosecution of this case has been conducted since 11/4/13, and/or should any such type supersession evidently be otherwise necessary in order for RJM to ensure the retention of the claims referenced in the title to this document, as, inter alia, the axioms that "the Defendant takes the Plaintiff as he finds him" and "the law cannot require the impossible" evidently apply to the circumstances RJM has now encountered in re the continued prosecution of this case.

3. FTR, if this Court would not now summarily grant the stay referenced in previous components of the motion of which this document constitutes a component part and which have been incorporated herein, it could substantially expedite the continued prosecution of this case by issuing an order eliminating the burdens which Judge S. Jones endeavored to impose upon RJM's scope of activity beyond those to which all litigants are promulgatedly subjected in the prosecution of any case in orders issued in cases 11 M1 013782 on 9/6/13, and 10 M1 015265 on 11/4/13, and likewise in regard to the granting of the plethora of petitions for consideration included in the version of the IL Supreme Court Rule 383 Motion presently pending in this case which has been most recently served upon this Court, to the extent that any granting whereof in any particular case would not have left any adversary of RJM et al's in this case, without adequate opportunity to contest such in any given instance.

4. The component of the record of RJM's burden-bearing in terms of his contribution to the elimination of what RJM understands it will be revealed at that last accounting (Matt. 25: 26 et seq) has continued to constitute an "unjustifiably dangerous condition" to all legitimate reliance interests - namely the conditions prevailing in IL Courts of all types at this juncture in history - w/n what has continued to constitute his present capacity to contribute to such in regard to the particular matters this document concerns, in which component the prosecution of the case this document concerns ("this case") is included, can be assessed at "thir..../grifdock.html".

5. It is expected that a substantial number of documents will be posted in re whereto in the near future, Providence permitting, but RJM simply has not succeeded in completing the entirety of such documents and getting them posted attributable to a cluster of interconnected problems encountered in re the completion of such task.

6. Via the issuing of an order enabling RJM to either email documents submitted in various theatres which concern this Court to this Court or to simply email notices of posting to any given URL, the burdens(s) of RJM's activity in regard to such matters can be substantially reduced and RJM will even produce an email address for this Court for such purpose, should he receive a request that such task be accomplished.

7. The component of the record of RJM's burden-bearing in terms of his contribution to the elimination of what RJM understands it will be revealed at that last accounting (Matt. 25: 26 et seq) has continued to constitute an "unjustifiably dangerous condition" in the nature of "the core temporal problem/structural defect" which can evidently be justifiably made accessible to the public can be assessed at: "thir..../TableContents.html".

8. Inter alia, since the production and processing of this document is a component of a "mitigation of damages" endeavor, relative to among other evidently unjustifiably injurious components of activity, that of this Court in regard to the matters this document concerns, RJM terminates it here so as, inter alia, to keep such damages to the unpreventable minimum, as damages can never be legitimately recovered for activity not demonstrably necessary to prevent and/or mitigate the consequences of, the unjustified incurment of detriment.

9. In order to cover a worst case scenario in which RJM would not succeed in getting a complete chronicling of the processing of this document posted online as it was claimed it would be in the "Component of 2/27/14...." of the "..Motion of 12/4/13..." in re which this component also constitutes a constituent component whereof, RJM herein avers that, such chronicling will be posted as soon as RJM can get it posted.

Wherefore, RJM herein moves this Court to grant the consideration referenced in the title to this motion.

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of 735 ILCS 5/1-109, I aver to the veracity of all factual averments included herein.

RJ More