Make your own free website on Tripod.com

 

United States District Court                                                      

 Northern District of Illinois

                                       Eastern Division

Robert J More

v.                                                                          

                                                                                                        Case No 07 C 256

City of  Chicago et al,

Defendant(s),

            PLAINTIFF’S (“RJM” ’S) SECOND  COMPONENT OF  MOTION TO RECONSIDER (“MTR”) OF 3/13/07, POSTED ON THE  INTERNET URL:  http://www.geocities.com/thirstforjustice/laus0031.htm (WHICH COMPONENT IS A PART OF  WHAT  MAY END UP CONSISTING OF  TEN OR MORE COMPONENTS), THE ORDER ENTERED DISMISSING THE CASE THIS MOTION CONCERNS ON 2/27/07, WITH THE ENTIRETY OF  THE CONTENTS OF  THE MOTION FILED ON 3/13/07 INCORPORATED HEREIN AS IF FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN

            NOW comes the Plaintiff, (“RJM”) to indignantly move this Court to grant the relief described in the title to this motion and in explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows:

            1. The contents of   all motions already filed in the case this motion to reconsider concerns (“this case”) are all incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein.

            2. As RJM has explained so many times in so many forums  before, rulings of  civil courts (and/or for that matter, laws of whatever sort imposed and/or enforced by humans in any theatre), at whatever level are not the ultimate source of authority for RJM.

            3. On the contrary, RJM accepts the often onerous obligation imposed predominantly by  the  requirements of  the Fourth and Fifth Commandments of  the Decalogue  and to a lesser extent by  other amongst such  Commandments as well, as such have been defined and explicated by the Magisterium of  the Catholic Church through the ages,  to contribute to the accomplishment of  the objective of  keeping exercises of  government authority at whatever level within acceptable limits.

            4. Indeed the anchor of  the  U.S. Constitution from which the  authority exercised by the Court herein addressed (“this Court”) has been derived is the Anglo-American Common Law  (Cohen v Virginia ___U.S. __ (1821) and the anchor of  such Common Law is Clause 61 of  the Magna Charta.

            5. In vain has RJM searched through the orders this Court has entered in this case to find any basis upon which RJM would be confident that he could justifiably concede the claims to consideration at stake in the matters this motion concerns – the Monell claim against the City of Chicago for the grossly inadequate monitoring, regulation and discipline  of   its police officers and the use of  intimidation and other unacceptable practices and tactics to secure the interests of   those who can “buy the services” of  the City’s Police Department  (“C.P.D”) for various iniquitous purposes, in this case, a landlord endeavoring to quash opposition to his illegal and illegitimate agenda posited by a Roman Catholic tenant unwilling to make any type of concession to Lucifer’s demonstrable agenda and activity which such tenant was not convinced in a given case would not at his accountability appointment end up being classified as an unjustified concession to such agenda and activity.

            6.  This case deals with a coordinated and  interconnected constellation of  corruption and criminality involving any number of  well-healed and deep-pocketed miscreants, a substantial majority of  the  CPD’s supervisors and street-level officers, a worthless and useless Dept of Internal Affairs, and Office of  Professional Standards, an anemic and thoroughly compromised Police Board for the City,  a City Council and a Mayor  plagued by unacceptable priorities and an almost categorical if not categorical, lack of  the type of  moral fiber  and concern for the welfare and destinies of  those whose interests  they have been commissioned to serve and protect, which public officials must possess to exercise the authority of  a given public office such that the moral liability of  a given and of  every exercise, of the governmental  authority of a given office would not remain not-adequately covered, and beyond that a judicial system in the local federal courts, both at the trial court level and in the appellate court which is likewise so compromised,devoid of  moral fiber  and scandalously unconcerned about the consequences of  the activity of  such entities in the lives of  the great majority of   the citizens of  this country and the world, that RJM cannot understand how anyone cognizant of  the problems in regard to which RJM complains, and of  the tragic consequences in the lives of individual souls and for the social order at large thereof,  which result from such uncorrected problems,  who having the capacity, to borrow the terminology of the authors of  the Declaration of  Independence   “to alter or abolish such forms of government”,  who would neglect to endeavor to close all such entities, at least unless and until each and all would have been adequately “de-Talmudized” could be classified as not being a heartless, spineless, gutless, shameless, useless and worthless, sycophant, mercenary and quisling, a betrayer of  his baptismal promises, an enemy of  God,  and in general a reprehensible reprobate.

            6.a.)  There are so many incidents of  attempted intimidation, unjustified expenditures of public funds, and the use of  the CPD for purposes demonstrably incompatible with the identifiable interests of  the vast majority of  the people, not only of  the world and of  this country but of  this city, that RJM has had a hard time deciding which  claims for relief and complaints to include in his proposed amended complaint in this case and which to include in other cases already filed or which might have to be filed in the future.

            7.  So that no interest in regard to which RJM understands that he would have to provide an accounting would remain not-adequately protected in terms of  the structure that RJM understands would have to be in place before RJM could justify responding to either the substance of  this Court’s order of 2/27/07 or the City’s motion to dismiss (“MTD”), RJM will truncate this motion here, as he awaits either a stipulation that all respondents named in the Rule 20 Petition RJM has filed in the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to participate in depositions conducted under the conditions proposed for such in documents that have been adequately served upon each and all, respectively, or an order would be issued by such Court compelling such respondents to be subject to such type depositions.

            8. RJM again, in this document, moves this Court to address the several different formulations presented to  it on  3/08/07, if  RJM recalls the exact document in which such formulations were articulated,  regarding this Court’s practice of  forcing litigants to proceed in litigation without their being in possession of   the consideration that they would need in a given instance to ensure that their moral liability would not be left uncovered in a given case, which practice,  as in this case, leaves a litigant (almost invariably, if not categorically,  the financially and politically less favorably positioned party in a given dispute) forced to proceed  according to   a totally unacceptably structured procedural standard or to risk having a judgment issued against him or her.

            9. This “Hobson’s Choice” approach is one which is entirely incompatible with the express and implied guarantees of  consideration contained in innumerable interconnected provisions of  the Constitution of  the U.S. , not the least of  which are those contained in the Thirteenth Amendment thereof.

            10. Rather than risk waiving or relinquishing the measures of  consideration RJM understands are now in issue in this regard, RJM informs this Court and the Defendants that RJM is willing to consider any proposition regarding how and why RJM would allegedly be justified in addressing the substantive matters contained in this Court’s order of 2/27/07 and/or the City’s MTD, if that would be the position anyone herein addressed would posit; and that until RJM is confident that he could proceed further at this juncture before getting all the Respondents enumerated in the Rule 20 Petition deposed or procure the consideration which he understands that he ought  or must  procure  from such depositions via some other procedure or means, RJM will leave substantive responses, should any be necessary for a later component of  this motion.

            11. Upon petition therefore or eventually without petition therefore, RJM will provide an  itinerary according to which RJM intends to continue to proceed in this MTR.

            12. Whatever happens, RJM is committed to getting everything he intended to submit to this Court in terms of  an Amended Complaint and now since the dismissal imposed on 2/27/07, in a multi-furcated MTR into the trial court record before there would be any ruling on the MTR by 4/22/07 (which is the date that RJM proposed this Court keep the MTR period open until).

            13. RJM herein reminds all concerned that RJM recognizes that there is no judicial immunity protection from accountability  for one’s conduct in the governmental scheme established by the authors of   the U.S. Constitution, anchored as such is in Magna Charta Clause 61, and that in Walz v Tax Commissioner of  New York  (_U.S._), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the longstanding character of  a violation [(such as the appallingly unjust sacred cow of  judicial immunity)], could never confer legitimacy thereupon, even should such violation go back to the date of  the establishment of  the Constitution….,  and that RJM will challenge any litigation privilege the City might raise in regard to disseminating the egregious mischaracterizations, distortions and fabrications contained in this Court’s orders to parties and entities of  whatever sort, without also presenting RJM’s soon to be completed assessments of such orders along therewith or at least presenting the contents of  this paragraph.

            14. In this regard, RJM has continued to proceed according to a standard of  doing the least that he has understood that it would be necessary to do  in a given instance and in every to retain a claim to eventually ensure the vindication of   the interests of  the Catholic Church in regard to which RJM understands that he will have to provide an accounting in the matters this case concerns in whatever theatre it would be in which such interests would have to be vindicated and that correlative to this approach, Judge Filip has not incurred tort liability beyond that which  it could not possibly be claimed would not necessarily have to be assessed against him  for his unjustified injury causing duty breaches according to the axiom, Qui nocentibus parcit, innocentibus punit.

            14. a) Even now, RJM has refrained from presenting a full blown counter-attack on the predations and aggressions to which his claims have been subjected, for among other purposes to enable this Court to rectify the injustices it has perpetrated at the lowest possible cost, which further demonstrates how loathsome RJM finds the opportunism of  this Talmudized society.

            14.b) RJM herein demands that the City immediately serve notice upon Judge L Egan that RJM contends that there is not a scintilla of  legitimacy to any of  the claims contained in any court order issued by this Court thus far, other than those describing factual occurrences and developments and that characterizations of this Court contained therein are defamatory calumnies crying out for retraction and rectification. 

            15.  As the sorry record of  the various respective  Respondents listed in RJM’s Rule 20 Petition indicates, the number of  persons who succeed in exercising the authority of  government offices, with whose exercises thereof, RJM is familiar, upon what can be identified to a measure of  moral certainty to constitute (“WCBI”) the protective side of WCBI the protective/predatory fault line with any regularity in this geographical area under the jurisdiction of  the U.S. Supreme Court is, if not miniscule, not far from it.

            16. For this Court to dismiss the Monell claim  filed in this case, without permitting RJM to add the innumerable other incidents of  the abuse of  the City’s Police Department for the procurement of  the pecuniary and political interests of those who can “buy it” to which he has been subjected since 1999 to an amended complaint, notwithstanding that one only plead on a notice pleading standard in federal court proceedings and that the 7th C.C.A. has established nine amendments to a complaint in this type of case as the threshold for amendments to a complaint in such type case, deny RJM the opportunity to respond to the City’s patently vacuous and malicious MTD at all, and to then reach down into one of  the lower tiers of  hell  to extract therefrom  the broadbrush “impossible to conceive of any scenario” demonstrates just why the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was inserted  therein immediately after the First, how accurate were the prophecies of  Pope Leo XIII regarding  the devastation  that would be wrought by the forces he found it necessary to condemn in Humanum Genus, and why Pope Pius XII had to condemn categorical pacifism in his Christmas Message of 1956.

 

               Wherefore, RJM herein petitions this Court to reconsider the Order entered in this case on  2/27/07, dismissing the case this motion concerns and to then reinstate such case,  and for this Court to now grant leave to RJM to file an amended complaint instanter in this case, predicated upon this court’s granting the motion to reconsider and reinstating this case.

               Indignantly submitted under protest,

Robert J. More, Jn. 2:15, Magna Charta Cl. 61, Pope Pius XII Christmas Message of 1956 Anti-genocidist, Burden-bearer (Mt. 11:28,30,  13:46, 16:18)

 

United States District Court                                                         

 Northern District of Illinois

      Eastern Division

Robert J More

v.                                                                           

                                                                                                        Case No 07 C 256

City of  Chicago et al,

Defendant(s),

                     NOTICE OF FILING OF MOTION  TO RECONSIDER ON 3/13/07

Notice is herein provided that on 3/13/07 the undersigned  did file in the  Clerk’s office or in the filing receptacle in the  Dirksen Federal Building at 219 S. Dearborn St. Chicago IL  a copy of  this notice and of  the accompanying Motion to Reconsider and Amend the Complaint of 3/13/07 and set it for resolution on 4/22/07 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1919 of such building and that this component thereof was posted on the URL provided in such component.

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 USC 1746, I aver to the veracity of all claims contained herein infra.

Robert J. More

[Robert J. More

P.O. Box  6926

Chicago IL 60680

312 479-6287

thirstforjustice@yahoo.com]

 

Certificate of  Service

 

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of   28 USC 1746, the undersigned does aver that he did  serve upon  the City of Chicago and CPD Supt P. Cline, a copy of  this notice and the accompanying motion dated 3/13/07, by leaving a copy of  such with: The City of  Chicago, Dept of  Law on the Sixth Floor of  City Hall at 118 N. Clark St. Chicago, IL 60601 before 18:00, which documents included reference to the URL at which this component of  the motion has been included.

Robert J. More

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1