IN THE SUPREME COURT OF the State of ILLINOIS Robert More ("RJM"ï†), Estate of RJM, Campaign to Make the World Safe for Innocence Once Again, St. Michael the Archangel, MAA Fund Plaintiff/Movant v Judge L. Martin re: More v Case # 11 CH 12339 Grif et al in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL
Abbreviated Version of Proposed ORDER of 3/2/15
This cause coming to be heard on the Fourth component of 3/2/15 of the IL SCR 383 Motion of 10/22/12 filed bjy Robert J. More ("RJM"ï†) originally in regard to Case # 11 CH 12339 ("11 CH 12339"), but subsequently in regard to the plethora of other cases it now concerns, including Cases #ed 08 CH 9977, 10 M1 015265, 11 M1 013782, 12 M1 012163 More v Rojas, More v Northshore, (hereinafter referenced soley by the applicable case #'s, respectively) in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, adequate notice having been served, & the Court having been presumably adequately advised in the premises:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief sought in the accompanying motion by RJ More is granted/denied.
1. The activity of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL and the IL Appellate Court First District is herein immediately suspended, without RJM's having to have provided notice of his seeking such suspension according to the principles operative to the filing of petitions for the issuance of temporary restraining orders, ________________________, or: the criminal code of the State of IL is herein declared to be un-constitutional as absent the issuance of this order, the contents whereof might ever have been applied to any and all activity conducted by RJM and/or in which RJM would ever participate, by whomsoever orchestrated, for the purpose of remedying the unjustifiably caused injuries which 11 CH 12339, 08 CH 9977, 10 M1 015265, 11 M1 013782, 12 M1 012163 More v Rojas, More v Northshore, concerns, respectively, or: All proceedings in Case # 11 CH 12339, 08 CH 9977, 10 M1 015265, 11 M1 013782, 12 M1 012163 More v Rojas, More v Northshore, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL ("11 CH 12339"ï†), are herein stayed for 60 days so that a.) records of the audiences in regard to which Petitioner ("RJM") complains can be presented to this Court for its consideration, b.) an attorney can be appointed to present further components of this SCR 383 Motion to this Court, as an agent and not the principal in the presentation whereof, and c.) RJM can present any and all supporting material he understands that he would have to present to this Court in order to adequately present the entirety of the claims for consideration which he understands that he is supposed to be presenting hereto at this juncture, to this Court. 2. Permission is herein granted to RJM to bring and use an audio recording device in any proceedings ever conducted in 11 CH 12339, 08 CH 9977, 10 M1 015265, 11 M1 013782, 12 M1 012163 More v Rojas, More v Northshore in the future according to the terms included in the "Petition for Equitable Relief"ï† included in the Amended Complaint pending in 11 CH 12339 (Doc. # 10 in the "D/L of 4/30/13). 3. In light of the presently operative NDAA Section 1021, RJM is herein provided assurance and correlatively, members of any and all policing entities conducting activity in IL are provided notice, that RJM may wear whatever body armor, protection from tasers and/or directed energy weaponry of whatever sort, asphyxiation, blinding and/or hearing destruction mechanisms, RJM would ever consider it necessary to wear in any Court building and/or courtroom in Cook County, IL and/or upon any other property in existence w/n the State of IL except private property upon which RJM would not possess any legitimate claim to ever be present. 5. It is herein ordered that the members of the Cook County Sheriff's Department shall not be permitted to have any weapons on their persons while on duty at the R. Daley Center in Chicago, IL, but may continue to bear weapons when coming to or leaving their employment, except for one member whereof in each of the plazas on the first floor whereof _______________________, or: In light of the same considerations referenced in "#3"ï† herein supra, the same rules apply to RJM's bearing the entirety of the weaponry which would constitute standard issue for a Navy Seal, Army Ranger, and/or any member of any state or local policing entity ___________________. 6. The threshold for direct criminal contempt in the Courts of the State of IL ("IL"ï†) is not one iota different at this juncture in history than it was the day upon which the SCOTUS'es opinion in "In re Oliver, (333 U.S. "Â¦) was issued and no one shall be held in direct criminal contempt in IL unless and except according to the provisions of that opinion. 7. Any and all stays upon discovery issued in the trial court in any of the cases this document concerns are herein lifted. 8. RJM is excused from the ordinary requirement to include copies of all documents referenced in any motion filed in this Court, and can instead satisfy any and all "informing of the Court and adversaries re any given matter" requirements via the posting of any and all documents referenced in any petition filed in this court in a website provided adequate references would be provided to any documents posted in such manner in any petition ever filed in this Court. 9. RJM may file any and all documents which he would ever endeavor to file in the petition this order concerns via the use of the verification statute codified in 735 ILCS 5/1-109 on whatever proof of service would accompany any filing and without any notarization thereupon________________________. 10. RJM may file any and all documents which he would ever endeavor to file in any petition which he might ever file in this Court via the use of the verification statute codified in 735 ILCS 5/1-109 on whatever proof of service would accompany any such type filing and without any notarization included thereupon________________________. or RJM must have any and all documents ever filed in this case accompanied by a notarized proof of service and a briefing schedule in regard to this matter is herein established as follows, so that RJM can adequately present and preserve a constitutional challenge to the contents of this order __________________________ or RJM must have any and all documents ever filed in this case accompanied by a notarized proof of service and RJM can explain his concerns in this regard to this Court according to the following timetable ____________________________, ______________________________, ___________________________, ___________________, but RJM must file a separate lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment in regard to the use of the verification for the proof of service issue in regard to documentjs filed in this Court__________________ This Court (will) (will not) provide findings of facts and conclusions of law if it will not provide RJM a dispensation from the most onerous notary requirement ______________ 11. (see #8 included herein supra) RJM may omit the inclusion as exhibits to future components of this motion which might need to be filed of any document referenced in whatever he would submit to this Court provided he provides links to internet postings which adequately function at the time of the filing of a given document ____________.
12. This Court confirms that it has been informed that RJM is complaining that RJM has been deprived of access to the documents and legal information sources to which he has understood that unless this Court would summarily declare the unconstitutionality of a number of codified statutes, rules, protocols and/or policies, and/or de facto policies or customs which have been enforced against RJM, which RJM is convinced are unconstitutional, unconscionable and simply constitute component elements of the shackles to the abomination of Jewish Supremacism by which RJM and all similarly situated activity conductors remain enslaved at this juncture in Lucifer's endeavor to eliminate everything not consumately wicked from the face of this earth, either on the faces whereof and/or as applied to various circumstances which RJM and/or other similarly situated individuals (has) (have) encountered in any given scenario, to which RJM has understood that he has needed access in order to complete the entirety of the constitutional challenges to the various types of enactments referenced herein supra, in order to ensure the adequate coverage of the Webb v Webb (_U.S._)/IL v Gates (_U.S._) pressed and passed upon in the lower court(s) threshold of issue presentation necessary to render any claim(s) that the members of the SCOTUS might make absent the adequate coverage of such threshold in any given instance of waiver, relinquishment and/or forfeiture of the judicial review of any given issue(s) of a federal constitutional dimension, regarding the filing of this motion in this Court, atributable to a.) the enforcement of the Order issued in 11 M1 013782 on 9/6/2013 by the Cook County Sheriff's Department ("CCSD"), b.) the enforcement of some order allegedly issued by the Chief Judge of the CCCC, IL, which allegedly prohibits the use of electronic recording devices in the Courtrooms and Courthouses of the CCCC, IL, c.) the enforcement or noticed and/or threatened enforcement of a number of other alleged and/or actual legal promulgations.
13. This Court herein declares that RJM shall not be required to document the matters referenced herein supra in order to procure summary vacations and/or declarations of the unconstitutionality of any given actual or alleged legal promulgation beyond what would in any given instance constitute RJM's best recollection of the developments constituting the factual basis of any given claim which RJM would present to this Court _________________ or In light of the notification provided in paragraph #12 herein, a.)the Cook County Sheriff's Department shall no longer restrict Robert J. More's access to either the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, nor to the Cook County, IL, Law Library via any alleged enforcement of the Order issued in 11 M1 013782 on 9/6/2013, nor via any other formula______________, b.) there shall be no interference with RJM's making electronic recordings of any activity conducted in any Courthouse or Courtroom of the CCCC, IL, except activit(y)(ies) of a type to which a declaration of a reasonable expectation of privacy would have been promulgated prior to the making of any such type recording by RJM,
[excluded until RJM can get copies of this documetn and all accompanying documents delivered to representatives of the Federal Government which this postulation concern: "c.) in light of this Court's jurisdiction over Federal Defendants and Federal Property abiding within the property boundaries of the State of IL, there shall be no interference with RJM's making electronic recordings of any activity conducted in any Courthouse or Courtroom of the United States of America, abiding within the boundaries of the State of IL except activit(y)(ies) of a type to which a declaration of a reasonable expectation of privacy would have been promulgated prior to the making of any such type recording by RJM."],
d.) The Chief Judge of the CCCC, IL and the Cook County, IL Sheriff, both, shall independently of any activity conduct by the other official, respectively, either provide RJM a copy of any and all order(s) which either alleges prohibits the possession and/or use of electronic recording devices by members of the public in Courthouses and/or Courtrooms of the CCCC, IL, or if it would be the position of either or both officials that no such type order exists, a confirmation that it is the understanding of each official , respectively, that no such type order exists_______________.
14. Robert J. More shall not be required to participate in any interaction with Judge Sydney Jones III, nor any other judge as a condition of his being permitted to access (any) area(s) of the Richard J. Daley Center accessible to members of the public.
15. This Court confirms that it has been informed by RJM that RJM is only participating in whatever adjudication would be conducted in re the filing of the motion this document accompanies, this document and any and all accompanying documents according to the standard explicated in the Roman Catholic Dispute Resolution Chart which accompanies this document as an exhibit, which is herein referenced as the Roman Catholic Fourth Commandment Burden-Bearing Formula for the Petitioning of the Government for a Redress of Grievances which is entirely incompatible with and must be distinguished from what has so tragically come to constitute the prevailing standard for petitions for the redress of grievances to the nominal governments presently operative in this Country, which is the Jewish Supremacism Accommodating, Making of Demonstrably Unjustified Concessions to Any and All Perpetrations of Defraudments of Legitimate Reliance Interests With Impunity Formula, inter alia, because participation of such type in such adjudication evidently constitutes the "consideration to which posterity is entitled from
RJM in regard to the matters this document concerns."
16. In lieu of serving copies of any motion filed in this Court pursuant to the provisions of S.C.R. 383 upon any respondent whereto in any given instance, in light of the constraints in regard to which RJM is presently burdened, RJM shall be permitted to post any given version of such type document in a website provided he provides notice to any and all interested parties to any given such matter, of any such posting sufficient to ensure that any respondent whereto in any given instance would have adequate opportunity to respond whereto.
17. Any and all respondents and/or otherwise interested parties regarding the motion this document accompanies shall provide RJM confirmation of having succeeded or not succeeded in accessing the version whereof posted in the URL at which RJM will have posted it and shall provide similar type confirmations regarding any future components of this motion, such that RJM can then provide confirmations of accessibility of any given document to respondents and/or other concerned parties in any given instance, and notice of such accessibility to this Court in any and every instance in which this method would have been utilized.
It is the position of the members of this Court that no claim to any consideration has been waived, forfeited, nor relinquished attributable to the non-presentation whereof in the documents presented to this court along with this proposed order __________________. ENTER: ___________________ _______________________ Justice Date