Make your own free website on Tripod.com

thirstforjustice.tripod.com/grifdl4612.html

Document List of 4/6/12 (“D/L 4/6/12”)

- 1.a D/L of 4/6/12 X

1. D/L of 3/28/12, Including Proposed Order of 3/28/12 X

  1. Clerk's Document re Scanning

  2. Proposed Order of 4/16/12

  3. Motion of 4/6/12 to Procure Relief Enumerated in Proposed Order of 3/28/12

  4. Core temporal problem

Documents listed herein supra adjacent to which is an X were emailed to the CCSA and IAG on 4/10/12 before 8:42 a.m.

Documents listed herein supra adjacent to which is an Y were filed via transmission to the clerk on 4/10/12 before 9:30 a.m.

Documents listed herein supra adjacent to which is an Z were delivered to the Court as courtesy copies on 4/10/12 before 9:30 a.m.


IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

Robert More, ("RJM") et al

v Circuit Court Case No. 11 CH 12339

CCSD SGT Jennifer Griffith, et al

Plaintiff’s Proposed Order of 4/16/12

This cause having come before this Court on Plaintiff's Motion of 4/6/12 __________________, the CCSA, IAG, and RJM appearing and the court having been advised in the premises to the extent the parties were permitted to advise it, IT IS HEREIN ORDERED:

  1. This Court confirms that it has been informed by RJM, that the only reason that RJM filed the version of the complaint filed by him on 2/14/12 was to prevent the DWPing of the case this document concerns (“this case”)at that juncture and that Providence permitting, RJM is committed to replacing the complaint filed on 2/14/12 in this case with a new complaint encompassing claims which the documents referenced herein concern, and that the “standard and method of adjudication” issues which RJM remains committed to getting raised in re the adjudication of this case are not of any less importance in RJM's understanding than the substantive claims this case concerns.

  2. This Court has proceeded through each of the entries in the “Proposed Order of 3/28/12” which was filed along with this document and either granted or denied the relief sought in re whereto, item by item, wherein.

  3. A copy of that order shall be attached to this order by the clerk

  4. This Court has been informed that according to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, MIS Detail Chief Deputy Robert O'Connor, that except in circumstances in which a court order would bring the creation and provision of copies of documents under the purview of 735 ILCS 5/5-105 (a)(1) that asserts: “Fees...certified copies of court documents ...deemed by the court to be necessary to ...prosecute...action.”, that according to the wording of such statute, copies of documents are not covered by any SCR 298 petition applicable in any case and thus either a.) orders the Clerk to make copies of documents in Case #'s 09 CH 18934, First Municipal Div Criminal Case #'s, 08123741901, 08160039001, and this case at no expense to RJM or else herein directs the Cook County Sheriff and all Deputies whereof and the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL to abstain from interfering with and otherwise, permit, any endeavor RJM would undertake to bring an auto-document feed scanner into the Richard Daley Center and use such to produce copies of the documents referenced herein supra.

  5. The Order issued in this case on 3/28/12 is herein stricken and a new timetable is herein established as follows: whatever version of a complaint in the case this document concerns (“this case”) it would be which RJM would claim would constitute the complaint to which he could not justifiably object to encountering a responsive pleading from the Defedants (“D's”) who have filed appearances in this case shall be filed within 7 days of RJM's either receiving copies of the documents referenced herein supra or completing the scanning referenced herein.

  6. Upon the filing of such complaint, RJM must file the entirety of the documents he asserts he intended to file in Oct. of 2011, and Feb of 2012 but which Atty Galic neglected to file on his behalf and provide notice of his intent to procure consideration of the contents of the document which he did in fact file conditionally in the first week of January of 2011, in this case.

  7. The parties shall then have 14 days to decide whether they would be willing to stipulate to any of the proposals contained wherein.

  8. Status is set for May 23, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in this case at which time, this Court shall proceed item by item through the documents referenced in entry #6 herein supra, and any and all other “standard and method of adjudication” issues which would have been presented in writing to it by 5/18/12 at 16:30 p.m.



IN THE CIRCUIT COURTOF COOK COUNTY, IL

CHANCERY DIVISION

Robert More, ("RJM") et al

v Circuit Court Case No. 11 CH 12339

CCSD SGT Jennifer Griffith, et al

Plaintiff's Motion of 4/6/12 for Various Forms of Relief

Now comes RJM to respectfully move the Court to grant the relief referenced in the Proposed Order of 4/13/12 which accompanies this document and the Proposed Order of 3/28/12, referenced wherein and in explanation whereof, RJM asserts and explains as follows:

  1. The document the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL presently issues in response to questions re scanning documents is attached to this document as Document #2.

  2. RJM's understanding of the “Core Temporal Problem” (“CTP”) presently afflicting the world is explained in an abbreviated form as Document #5 filed along herewith, and RJM herein informs this Court that it is RJM's intention to prosecute the entirety of the dispute resolution which the case this document concerns (“this case”) concerns in light of the burdens imposed upon RJM by the existence of such CTP and that the conducting of activity by RJM in regard to such priority, constitutes, inter alia, in RJM's understanding, a constitutionally protected free exercise of RJM's religion

  3. To be continued, augmented and/or superseded as might be evidently necessary at some future juncture.

    Wherefore RJM respectfully moves this Court to grant the relief referenced in the opening paragraph of this motion,

    R.S. Robert J. More


click here to access the docket applicable to the case this document concerns

click here to access the index page of the website in which such docket is contained

click here to access the email address of such website's webmaster and/or the author of this document