Confirmation re CPVR Retention Agenda of RJM in re Prosecution of ........
of ..., from this Court, the Counsel for the Defendants and each and
all of their supervisors in whatever chains of command are present in
regard to the Offices of such Counsel, and from each and every D
included in this case or that would have been included had RJM been
permitted to include all D’s in this case which RJM has understood
have incurred tort liability from activity conducted by him or her or
them in regard to the matters ........ concerns, [respectively] that
each and all have been informed that RJM does not consent to have any
of the claims the case this conveyance concern (“this case”),
includes, adjudicated in the any of the Courts presently conducting
activity in Chicago, IL, state or federal, does not expect that any
such claims will ever be adequately resolved via activity conducted
in and via any Committee of 300 Controlled Government Entity nor any
political subdivision whereof, understands that the State and Federal
Court Systems in Chicago IL are so controlled, and only filed
........ in the CCCC, IL, because of filing restrictions
unjustifiably and criminally and tortiously imposed upon him in the
area's federal courts (which he understands to constitute “judicial
hell hole”s, acknowledging Judge D. Manion's exceptional activity
conducted wherein and that of any other judge who has in any given
instance adequately borne the burden of his or her judicial office in
any given exercise of judicial authority, under protest, in order to
retain a morally legitimate claim to participate in the utilization
of (a) contra-predatory vigilante remed(y)(ies) (“CPVR”) in order
to remedy the unjustifiably caused injuries concerned and to rectify
the injustices concerned, via either the procurement of an acceptable
resolution whereof [in this proceeding], or the demonstration of the
unavailability of any alternative to the use of a CPVR which would
not be plagued by the possibility of there being casualties and/or
fatalities in the use whereof as CPVR's invariably are in situations
in which members of policing entities refuse to concede a given
matter and "stand down" (while acknowledging that far more
casualties and fatalities might in the long term result from leaving
a CPVR unused in regard to a given injustice ever perpetrated, eg.
see Solzenhytzen's lamentation from Stalin's gulag re waiting too
long to resort to the use of force against Stalin's round-up
head-busters during Stalin's purge of all dissidents, the Ukranians
failure to stop Stalin's extermination of them via the use of force
in the textbook example of a "too little too late"
scenario which their use of force failed because recourse to such
remedy was not utilized soon enough, same outcome for the Germans who
could have stopped Hitler after the Reichstag fire false flag, but
who were without remedy by the time Hitler had replaced von
Hindenburg ), pursuant to the exhaustion of alternative remedies
prong of the promulgated requirements for the use of armed rebellion
against a predatory government entity (the principles of which are
applicable to any contra-predatory vigilante endeavor) explicated in
the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church'es position in regard
to the moral legitimacy of the use of force against government
oppression and false morality imposition (see entries in the
Catechism of the "Catholic Church" re the matter which promulgate authentic Catholic principles notwithstanding their inclusion in a heretical book), and that RJM does not consent to participate in any adjudication of any dispute with a balance of power/leverage and/or prerogative arrangement in place between the government and private sector activity conductors which is any weaker a position for such PSC’s than would that of the English Protestants in 1790 or 1791 (see Utah v Thompson or vice versa (_U.S._)“the common law consists of the law of England at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, of the U.S. Constitution” - paraphrase), been, had they had the benefit of the indigenously beneficial developments of the past 222 years of American Jurisprudence where the term “indigenous” is defined relative to the term "surrogate" in Clyde Cleveland’s “Common Sense Revisited” published w/n the past 10 years (which progression would in turn constitute a benchmark on the way to the establishment of conditions in the relation between a country's citizens and its government not incompatible with those which prevailed in the 13th Century France ruled by King St. Louis IX, who in a death bed letter to his son directed him as follows in regard to the adjudication of disputes in what was then to become the Son's Kingdom, "In a dispute between the rich and the poor, the side of the poor must always be taken until the truth of the matters in issue can be fully ascertained.", and that RJM has only participated in any proceeding(s) in ........ in order to retain the claims to participate in contra-predatory vigilantism which he understands that he has possessed since the malefactions, crimes and torts this case concerns were perpetrated and in light of the fact that it is RJM’s informed understanding that it would not be impossible to have this case adjudicated by a judge of the moral probity of former USDC for NDIL Judge J. Alesia, in the State of IL at this juncture in history, which has left RJM understanding that refusing to file any lawsuit in regard to the matters this case concerns (“this case”) was not an alternative the use of which would have enabled RJM to retain the claim to participate in a CPVR of the type referenced herein.
Where then is the claim to resort to the use of (a) CPVR's at the end of an adjudication of a given civil dispute in the Court system's presently existing and operative in the u.s. of A.? Provided the unjustifiably injured party has not resorted to the use of any unjustified liberties himself and has participated w/n the limits of his capacity to participate in the adjudication of a given dispute in the adjudication whereof, such claim is right where it was when he was injured before filing any civil suit, except that at such juncture he would possess legitimate claims against malefacting judges for malicious adjudication and malefacting attorneys and defendants for malicious defense of a civil suit and for deprivations of (a) right(s) guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the u.s. of A. under color of law pursuant to 42 USC 1983 re all concerned other than federal judges, attorneys and defendants and the "Bivens" remedy against these type actors.
The authority upon which this postulation abides is that: 1. "the law cannot require the impossible," 2. "presumptions against the waiver of rights of a federal constitutional dimension will be liberally indulged by this Court," SCOTUS - Michigan v Jackson (_U.S._) (in the type of arrangement this conveyance concerns, the right to sue (Right to Petition Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, Substantive Due Process, Prohibition on Slavery provisions of Constitution of the u.s. of A. ("Fed. Cons.") ) ("the damages in a civil suit constitute "property" actionable via the invocation of the protection(s) of Due Process," (Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co. (_U.S._)) . 3. "res judicata cannot be used as a defense to a civil case in any arrangement in which (a) (the) part(y)(ies) in any prior case to which effort would ever be made to apply such doctrine would not have been provided adequate opportunity to litigate such prior case - SCOTUS (U.S. v Montana or vice versa (_U.S._) Footnote 16). "for every injury incurred, the law will always provide a remedy."4. no legitimate claim for the remedy of any given substantive injury in regard to which any claim would have originally been filed could ever be in fact permanently lost attributable to a given possessor whereof's unwillingness to make concessions to any arrangements ever encountered in the standards and methods of adjudication utilized for the adjudication of such claim which he would have found to have constituted (an) unreasonably dangerous condition ("UDC") , in any arrangement in which the unreasonably dangerous character of such condition could be proven to be such not to those who would ever have been beneficiaries in their subjective apprehensions of what would constitute a benefit to any of them, but to those who would have been in a posture leaving them as injured parties from the leaving in place of such type condition or as subject to detriment at some future juncture from the maintenance in place of any such type UDC. 5. the right to avoid the incurrment of detriment from the bearing of what a given activity conductor would have subjectively apprehended in a given instance to have constituted a component of any burden which he would have understood himself bound to bear attributable to the religious convictions of such burden-bearer, would be protected by among other provisions of the Fed. Cons., the free exercise and prohibition upon the establishment of religion provisions of the first Amendment whereto.
In other words, unless and until either all of the safeguards which are presently supposed to be in place in every Court System operative in the u.s. of A., for the purpose of the adjudication of disputes of whatever type (civil, criminal, etc.), based upon all legitimate development(s) of Anglo-American Jurisprudence to this date, but which are presently not in place in a given court system presently operative in the u.s. of A., would have been reinstalled wherein in a given case, it is RJM's understanding that it could not ever possibly be legitimately claimed that any substantively meritorious claim could ever be permanently lost attributable to the incapacity of a given litigant to prevail initially in the participation in any given legal proceeding in which he or she would ever participate unless either he or she would have explicitly and uncoercedly, knowingly consented to have participated wherein according to whatever standards and methods of claim processing would have been utilized in the processing whereof or it could be demonstrated that for equitable reasons, an adverse disposition of a given adjudication could not be legitimately disregarded.
In summation, unless RJM would be missing something substantive in regard to the matters herein being addressed, in which case he would be most grateful to receive even non-infallible opinions in regard whereto: the initial abstention, subsequent to the causing/incurring of a given unjustified injury from the use of a CPVR by the victim whereof, for the purpose of the just remedying whereof could no more result in the relinquishment of any claim to later vindicate any such type claim whether via some adjudicative process or the use of a CPVR, than did the evacuation of Dunkirk and activity conducted during the period between such evacuation and the subsequent invasion of Normandy, result in any relinquishment of any claim to eventually invade Normandy, because, inter alia, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "FINAL ILLEGITIMATE JUDGMENT" as no judgment which would lack moral legitimacy could ever possess finality, regardless of how many assassins, government employed jack-booted thugs and/or activity conductors otherwise members of any entity of the type VA governor G. Mason referenced as "standing armies" would be willing to risk incurring permanent disability or death in any endeavor to enforce such type instrument of iniquity which ever might be utilized in any given instance.
It is RJM's further understanding that, as of the date of the composition of this docment, there is a "structural defect" present in every reviewing Court reviewing cases in this country with whose activity RJM is familiar and every single trial court wherein with whose activity RJM is familiar except the few over which James Alesia profile judges still preside and the source from which it is RJM's understanding that such structural defect emanates is referenced in the "Core Temporal Problem" document posted at: thirstforjustice.tripod.com/ismactp.....html.
Further, RJM herein opines that the concept that non-accession &/or non-deference to edicts, orders, laws &/or judgments issued by whatever constitutes the governmental arrangement presently prevailing in a given venue, regardless of the (il)legitimacy whereof is unacceptable, is itself an unacceptable and intolerable abomination of a concept which could not possibly have emanated anywhere other than the deepest bowels of hell.
Finally, further for now, RJM herein opines that unless one of the tragically few Judge J. Alesia profile judges still adjudicating cases in any of the Courts, state or federal presently operative in Cook County, IL, would end up having a given case assigned to his docket, there would not be any realistic prospect of any demander of moral legitimacy in the standard & method of adjudication of a given dispute ever procuring a morally legitimate adjudication whereof unless certain conditions, an enumeration of which can be found in other documents of which this document is a companion document in a collection of documents maintained in regard to the matters this document concerns.