PWCS – Prevent Worst Case Scenario Formula Document of 11512

update under construction to include arrangement in which ac tivity conductor making concession in a given instance would claim that the making of such in a given instance would not result in the permanent relinquishment of any claim to consideration according to the reasoning in Prosser and Keaton that criminal defendant plea bargain acceptors in certain arrangements would not lack a claim to sue for malicious prosecution, issue of criminal and tort liability incurred when a given issue – substantive in a given case and/or in regard to the method and/or standard of adjudication of a given substantive issue has remained unaddressed in a trial court proceeding (“TCP”), in a TCP and in an appellate court proceeding (“ACP”) as well, or in a TCP, an ACP and in petitions to review by Court’s whose review is discretionary, and the character of an arrangement in which a court would refuse to accommodate legitimate reliance interests in which it would also refuse to simply provide a declaration of unconstitutionality as applied of various criminal codes whose provisions might ever be applied in regard to any contra-predatory vigilante endeavor undertaken in regard whereto, and whether any member of any policing entity could ever incur any detriment for refusing to enforce a facially valid court order in such arrangement

Objective of Participation in Dispute Adjudication in 21rst Century in the De Jure Government Courts of Committee of 300 Owned and Operated /Talmudic-Barbaric amerika - A modest Proposal Presenting a Legitimate Alternative Between the Despicable, Sycophantic Relinquishment of Assets and Property to the Committee of 300 and its Merciless Minions (the Genocidist/Cannibalist Regime (“GCR”) ) Via the Provision of What Might Ever Be Construed to Constitute Any Type of Consent to Subjection to a Given Predation Perpetration on the One Hand, and “Going Post Office” (“GPO”) Whereby Sending Oneself from the Frying Pan into the Eternal Fire (Absent the Making of a Perfect Act of Contrition in Whatever Time Might be Available Between Incurrment of Trauma and Death in a Given Case) and Leaving the Contra-Genocidist/Contra-Cannibalist Movement with an Enslavement Arrangement Incrementally Worse After a Given GPO Incident than that which would have been in Place Before a Given GPO Incident would have transpired

Objective: Short Formulation: Until the court systems presently existing and operative in the u.s. of A. can be abolished according to a formula which would leave no reliance interest legitimate in character in any condition of not having been adequately accommodated, the objective of participation in litigation evidently must be to proceed through and out of the adjudication of a given case with all claims to consideration ever possessed in regard to a given matter, intact and unrelinquished, along with claims to consideration for any injuries unjustifiably incurred in any adjudication process ever conducted in regard whereto, w/o having permitted oneself to have become so entangled in and burdened by, the participation in the litigation of a given dispute that the burden of any prior obligation to which one would have ever been subjected would not have been adequately borne.


Objective: Longer Formulation: 1. Prevent Worst Case Scenario approach to Participation in either any Criminal or Civil Legal Adjudication ("PWCS") in Systems Promulgatedly in Place for the Purpose of the Adjudication of Disputes &/or Prosecution of Activity Ever Alleged to be Criminal in Character– which would be the incurrrment of culpability for any sin the incurrment of which would leave a given activity conductor without the possession of sanctifying grace which could occur via either the execution of an affirmative act or the making of a concession, the making of which could not have been morally justified in a given instance/2. Foregone conclusion that the dispute at issue in a given instance will not be acceptably resolved except via either the application of a contra-predatory vigilante remedy ("CPVR") or a full scale military conquest, unless it might end up being resolved via the demonstration of the capacity to accomplish such in a given instance and the commitment to accomplish such, should proposals for resolution of a given dispute without any recourse to the use of any CPVR prove unavailing without any CPVR having to actually be utilized in order to accomplish a given legitimate objective (eg. the claims of the English Subjects of King John III, at Runneyemede in 1215 A.D. ended up being accommodated without any CPVR having to be utilized for the purpose of the procurement of such accommodation), ever continuing to acknowledge that no CPVR can ever be used except when demonstrably necessarily needed and that in a case in which the predation perpetrating adversary concedes the matter in issue, nothing further would be necessary and correlatively justified, unless the villain party(ies) conceding would demonstrably be involved in some type of deception and subterfuge (see Michael Collins on the dangers of a truce, and the slaughter of the Cristeros who complied with the mis-informed Pope Pius XI’s directive to lay down their arms in Mexico in 1929) ultimately likely to prevent the procurement of the consideration ever sought by the part(y)(ies) endeavoring to rectify a given injustice, which foregone conclusion approach necessarily includes a commitment both to avoid the provocation of any sin and/or error and to accept a just resolution of any given dispute which could be procured without there being any resorting to any property confiscation and/or destruction and obviously, correlatively, without there being any use of any CPVR for the purpose of defeating any endeavor which might ever be undertaken for the purpose(s) of the prevention of the successful use of any CPV(R) property damage and/or confiscation remedy, as a method of procuring a legitimate resolution to a given dispute/3.Demonstration of Affirmative Refusal to consent to any deprivation of any legitimate claim to consideration/4. Evident Adequate Effort to Mitigate any and all Damages unjustifiably Incurred and Demonstrate Adequate Diligence, no relevant factor left unconsidered in any assessment of what would constitute "adequate mitigation endeavors" in a given instance, in bringing a given dispute to a just resolution, all conducted in a disposition of what St. Teresa referenced as “religious indifference” . Re the mitigation of damages aspect of this formula: demand would not necessarily have to be, but can be, made, that the unjustified injury causing duty breacher and/or tort feasor in a given instance either provide a mitigation of damages formula in regard to its culpable non, &/or mis &/or mal – feasance in a given instance, or else provide a confirmed explicit concession that it has been informed by the individual claiming the incurrment in a given instance of an unjustified injury (“harmed party”, “HP”) , that it would be the position of such HP that until a given definite date certain, that any claim incompatible with a presumption of adequate endeavors to mitigate damages would be relinquished unless a proposed formula in re whereto would be provided or an explanation justifying the utilization of some alternative other than those herein referenced would have been provided. Pursuant to the postulations contained in Logan v Zimmerman Brush Co. (_U.S._) that damages in a civil case constitute a property interest in regard to which due process requirements apply, the HP possesses claims to consideration to create an adequate record of all that would have transpired in regard to a given injury unjustifiably caused and in general, to rectify any given injustice/5. Submission of Demand for provision of stipulation from tribunal presider, prosecutor and/or member of policing entity, as the case ever might be – that any postulation of conveyance, or vice versa, whether oral, written or nonverbal, posted or unposted and howsoever delivered, which might ever, howsoever unjustifiably in a given instance, be interpreted, construed and/or claimed to constitute any type of insult and/or to have been insulting, could not by (itself) (themselves) ever constitute any basis via which culpability for any claim of provocation, elicitation, inducement, educement, &/or instigation of error &/or duty breach and/or sin, (“provocation of error”, “POE”) ever committed could be justifiably attributed to any activity conducted by the transmitter whereof except in an instance in which any explanation which it might ever be claimed could provide a justification for the causing of any detriment to the transmitter whereof would have been transmitted whereto at an early enough juncture in any given interaction to which it might ever be claimed that this stipulation might be applicable, to enable the modification of any such transmission ever alleged to constitute a provocation of error such that, inter alia, no claim of POE could ever be legitimately posited in any arrangement in which such could have been prevented and/or eliminated via the transmission of the type of stipulation which this conveyance constitutes. Or any unjustified injury causing duty breacher/tort feasor can provide the following general stipulation: Such and Such Adversary ______________herein stipulates that given the condition of the de jure government court systems in the country bordered on the North by Canada and on the South by Mexico as of …, that the dispute this document concerns will never be resolved according to a standard of accountability not incompatible with the requirements of the natural moral law in any proceeding ever conducted in any de jure government operated court presently conducting activity in such country, at the very least, attributable to the condition of the reviewing courts operative wherein (which clause leaves in place provision for the presence and activity of the Judge J. Alesia contingent of the judiciary still adjudicating cases in American Courts at this juncture in its history in trial court proceedings). Therefore it is herein conceded that the petitioning of any such court(s)would practically constitute a futile endeavor and the principle that the law can never require the execution of (a) futile act(s) is herein acknowledged/6. Demand for either a stipulation under penalty of perjury including an acknowledgment of the veracity of any factual averments which might ever be referenced wherein to the incurrment of criminal liability in a given instance or a “Running Lanier (520 U.S. 259) Examination” – that is a component of each and every audience ever conducted and/or in regard to each and every document ever submitted in regard to a given adjudication/interaction/process in which an opportunity would be provided for the examination of any and every govt activity conductor and/or individual who it would ever be alleged would have participated with any government activity conductor in the perpetration of any deprivation of any claim to consideration alleged to be guaranteed by the Const and/or laws of the u.s. of A. in any and every instance in which a given claim that a deprivation of such sort would have been perpetrated would have been anchored in the identification of a specific citation to a definition of the scope of the alleged liability of any given alleged perpetrator of any given alleged deprivation perpetration at the level of specificity at which tort liability for qualified immunity has been defined by the opinions promulgated by the SCOTUS in its opinions issued in regard to such matter (see Harlow v Fitzgerald (_U.S._), Parrat v Taylor (_U.S._)) and/or any private sector actor, his principal and/or agents at the juncture of the perpetration of any alleged malefaction, crime, tort, sin and/or error so that there would not be any provision in any arrangement ever in place in regard to the type of situation herein referenced via which Lucifer would have any opportunity to enable any of his servants to lie their way out of criminal and/or civil liability via (any) post hoc reconstruction(s) of factual predicates and/or the legal basis for a given component of activity. Any Lanier Examination ever conducted would have to be conducted according to a standard of procedure and modus operandi sufficient to ensure that neither any vagueness/overbreadth, nor honest mistake of fact defense(s) could ever be legitimately invoked to enable any government activity conductor of any type to succeed in evading a criminal conviction which would have been the justly deserved consequences of his or her activity in any given instance. There would have to be adequate provision provided by any and all persons and/or entities involved in a given interaction/audience for the examination referenced herein (to be) (have been) recorded via a method of audio-video recording, in regard to which the SD or any other type media device onto which whatever would (be) (have been) recorded would (be) (have been) made available to any and all such persons and/or entities prior to any discontinuance of any interaction/audience which would have ever been recorded so that neither any tampering with any recording nor the positing of any false allegation posited in regard whereto could undermine and/or negate the effectiveness and usefulness of this strategy.

1. To ISMA – addendum to PWCS of 11/5/12 – implicitly present in the formulation contained herein supra is: 1. A Refusal to contribute to the conference of the appearance of legitimacy upon any activity the character of which would be either one of obvious illegitimacy or in regard to which there would be a serious question regarding the moral character whereof in terms of the issue of whether there would be any (il) legitimacy whereof. 2. A Refusal to make any concessions to any activity in regard to which there would be evidence of demonic instigation, except unless and until moral certainty could be procured in regard to a given component of activity that such would not have been demonically instigated. 3. Inclusion of acknowledgement that the competent evidence in regard to which RJM would be cognizant at a given juncture would be that some activity conducted by some activity conductors in any given theatre of adjudication in regard to which an assessment of the moral character whereof would have been conducted in a given instance, would either permit or even in a given instance, compel, the provision of an assessment that such activity would not have lacked substantial legitimacy if indeed this would be the case in a given instance.

2. Finally, a Confirmation is herein sought that (such &/or such) tribunal presider ….will verify that there would be no competent evidence in regard to which he or she would be cognizant in a given instance upon which any conclusion could ever be predicated that adequate performance/compliance accomplishment would not have been demonstrated by any activity conductor ("AC") claiming the non-relinquishment of any claim to any measure of consideration attributable to the entrance into an adjudication record in a given case of a facially valid court order evidently adverse to the prospects for an initial just resolution of a given dispute at all, much less, due to his or her not having accomplished more than what would have been accomplished at a given juncture to prevent the perpetration of any error/unjustified injury causing duty breach and/or most importantly, sin, in regard to the entrance into any given adjudication record of any given order or judgment.


Focus and concern – that the burdens of the exercise of the authority of the office defined as:…. have not been and are not being, borne, according to what can be identified and demonstrated to constitute a minimally acceptable standard of accountability, that the component of the Catholic Cause in regard to which RJM understands that RJM will have to provide an accounting have been and are continually incurring a measure of detriment , as a foreseeable consequence of such other-than-adequate bearing and that the condition of the eternal disposition of the soul of RJM is dependent upon his making a “sufficiently strong showing” to eliminate such detriment.