Core Temporal Problem

Document List of 5/25/13 for S&M of Adjudication (“D/L 5/25/13”)

D/L of 5/25/13 X

Document List of 5/25/13 re Standard and Method of Adjudication – D/L of 5/25/13 - - X 2.

5. Nihil Obstat Pet –

6. SCOTUS Pet for Cert/Special Writ

7. Core Temporal Problem - X

8. RCDRC - X

9. Proposed ground rules of 10/22/12 - X

10. PWCS – X

11. Declaration of Unconstitutionality Template - X

12. Davis – Duties of Certain Classes of Laypersons – X*

Complaints/Arrearages Claims Against ISMA Members

13. Apology to Innocents/Posterity

14. Lawsuit Against Robert J. More on Behalf of World's Innocents & Posterity

15. Documents to Federal Grand Jury

16. Structural Defect Document of 11/15/12 - X

17. Record of time and resources consumed/expended re this project documents adjacent to which there is an "X" would have been submitted to the Court on 5/25/13 as partial performance of expression of intent included in motions previously filed modest proposal, nature and grace, E supremi, signature - re defraudments of legitimate reliance interests, ROLROT, initial component of partial list of quotes, MDL from which documents listed herein have been procured, petition for nihil obstat from ISMA CLT template - crim/civ

#7 from D/L of 11/15/12

Core Temporal Problem

Presuming that the devil will be left with the capacity to tempt the fallen human beings who inhabit and will inhabit the theatre of earthly existence to sin and that the problems inherent in the sin of the first parents and the consequences of that sin and every sin committed since, will be present in such theater until Christ returns:

The Core Correctable Temporal Problem is herein defined in a most abbreviated form as follows: Bill Still - "the issue of the control of the money supply of the U.S. [and beyond that of each of the European Countries and Countries colonized by European countries] is the human rights issue of our time

hunger, poverty, misery, disease are all caused by the unacceptable arrangements in place via which private central banks control the money supplies of the [various countries whose money supplies are controlled whereby]."

"they ask why it is that we say more upon the money question than we say upon the tariff question - when we have restored the money of the constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, until that is done there is no other reform that can be accomplished" - William Jennings Bryan

RJM note - it is RJM's informed but necessarily non-infallible understanding that the control of the money supply by the Talmudic banksters, is actually the hinge issue between the establishment of the Talmudic religion with all of its abominations as the de facto world religion and the police state apparatuses established to incrementally extirpate the noncounterfeit version of the rule of law from the face of the earth.

3 videos to be viewed to grasp the essence of the "core temporal problem" - Secret of Oz - hinge issue - money supply - Bill Still, Camp FEMA - police state to effect the genocide in progress to get world's population down to 14 million Talmud Adherents and Imposers (which group must be distinguished from those born into Jewish families but who would be unwilling to have any intended part in the enslavement and extermination agenda the Committee of 300 and its predecessors have been in the progress of imposing for centuries) and 486 million goy slaves - Gary Franchi, Synagogue of Satan - Fr. John O'Connor - to understand what the Presumptively Sanctifying Grace Possessing Kings and Temporal Rulers in Christendom understood re the menace Talmudism constituted and the dangers leaving it uncontained engendered, the Condemnations - explicit and/or implicit of it by Popes Innocent III and Innocent IV, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XI and the endeavors undertaken by such Popes to prevent the catastrophic consequences of its reaching ascendancy on the world stage as it now indisputably, approaching complete dominion, through Lucifer's instigation(s), has.

Question which a reader of this document might consider positing to him or her self: Is whatever combination of whatever it is that I am prioritizing, attempting to contribute to whatever cause(s) and/or leaving unaccomplished and/or uncontributed whereto, actually contributing anything to the prevention of 1.) the loss of souls and/or 2.) the shedding of innocent blood, given the opportunity cost of what i could be endeavoring to contribute in lieu of what it would be in a given instance which would in fact be being contributed by the participation in whatever projects it would be in which i would be participating/not participating?

An invitation is herein extended to contribute to the removal of the "root" of the "core temporal problem" rather than participating in the continued consumption of unregainable non-unlimited time and resources striking at what are evidently in the minds of many individuals who have prayed, done penance, conducted extensive research and sought extensive counsel in regard to the matters this document concerns, only "branches" whereof.

"The minds of men must be illuminated with the sure light of Catholic teaching, and their wills must be drawn to follow and apply it as the norm of right living in the conscientious fulfillment of their manifold social duties.

"In addition ... Catholic Action must organize propaganda on a large scale to disseminate knowledge of the fundamental principles on which, according to the Pontifical documents, a Christian Social Order must build.

"... But for the solution of our present problem, all this effort is still inadequate. When our country is in danger, everything not strictly necessary, everything not bearing directly on the urgent matter of unified defense, takes second place. So we must act in today's crisis. Every other enterprise, however attractive and helpful, must yield before the vital need of protecting the very foundation of the Faith and of Christian civilization."

Redemptoris, Pope Pius XI, 3/19/1937,, 863 688-9880 - #8 of D/L of 11/15/12

http://thirstforjustice., (…), Gordon W. – click here: Master Document List - (“MDL”) to get to the MDL in which this document is referenced. To access this document via a search engine, enter the characters - aloysiusalphonsusanselm.4 - wherein. Click here to access the home page of the site in which this document is included.





Stage 19 Post-Entrance Into Eternity Judgment Of The Soul Of A Given Activity Conductor Who Would Have Been Involved In The Adjudication/Resolution Of A Given Dispute

Stage 18 Post-Resolution Of A Given Dispute Activity And Developments In The Theatre Of Earthly Existence Which Might Necessitate In A Given Instance The Complete Overhaul Of The Outcome Of A Given Dispute And Re-Adjudication Thereof, So That The Problems That Have Plagued Individuals And The Social Order From The Horrendously Destructive Activity Of The Presently Operative Court Systems In Talmudic Supremacist Movement Controlled America (“TSMCA”) (Apoc. 2:9) Are Not Replicated In Pre-Post TSMCA And/Or Post TSMCA

Stage17 Review Process of Any Activity Conducted in any Stage 16 Proceeding Not Unworthy of the Appellation "Review"___________________________________________

Stage 16 Provision for civil adjudication of any claim that any activity conductor prosecuted but not convicted in any Stage #15 proceeding referenced herein ("Stage 15 proceeding") would seek to have adjudicated, or utilization of collateral estoppel defense of any endeavor to procure a civil adjudication of any claim filed by any activity conductor convicted in any Stage 15 proceeding which would have ever been conducted in regard to a given incident/quantum of activity.

Stage 15a. Worst Case Scenario - Provision of Vigilante Punishment of the Type of the Vindication of Mary Phagan's Honor in 1915 Should a Given Criminal Prosecution be Sabotaged, Against Both the Original Predation Perpetrator ("OPP") and Against Any Sabotuer Enabling a Given OPP to Evade Punishment in Stage 15

Stage 15 Criminal Prosecution of any Prosecutor, Member of Any Policing Entity and/or Judge who would participate in any trial of a Vigilante/Contra-genocidist for any participation in any vigilante and/or domestic insurrection activity which would demonstrably not have been, in any substantial measure, lacking in legitimacy. (Stages 12-15 are included in regard to a scenario in which there would be some remnant of the present system still in place and operative - other scenarios will be addressed in superseding components of this document.

Stage 14 Outcomes From One Or More Of The Four Types Of Trials Listed Infra Which Might Result In An Appeal or Series Of Appeals Of Various Type(s)

Stage 13 Criminal Prosecution Of A Criminal Prosecution Of B Civil Prosecution Civil Prosecution Wrongful Death By TSM Controlled Govt** By Contra-Genocidists Wrongful Death or Personal injury or Personal Injury Of A *** Of B***

Stage 12 B Captures A A Captures B A – Is Injured Or Killed* B Is Injured Or Killed

Stage 11 Conflict Involving The Use Of Some Type Of Force (CQC, HHW, Firearms, Projectile Launches, Explosives, Etc) Involving A&B_Due to the Causing of Either Unjustified Interference with Vigilante Endeavor or Some Type of Endeavor to Punish a Legitimate Vigilante Endeavor________________

Stage 10 Confiscation Or Destruction Of Property Or Combination Thereof Either Via Vigilante Means As A Component Of A Given Vigilante Injustice Rectification Project Or As A Component Of A Domestic Insurrection Waged According To Nothing Less Than At The Very Least The Barest Minimum Of Compliance-Accomplishment Threshold Standards Regarding Vigilantism And/Or Domestic Insurrections/Civil Wars Based Upon The Examples Of Among Other Endeavors Conducted By Catholics Which To The Extent Of The Knowledge Of The Author Of This Chart Have Never Been Declared To Have Been Morally Unacceptable By Either The Magisterium Of The Catholic Church Nor Any Representatives Of The Holy Office Nor Any Canonized Saint (Some Of Which Endeavors Having Been Lauded), Conducting Activity At A Given Juncture In History; Those Of The Procurers of The Magna Charta (Circa 1215 A.D), and of the Declaration Of Arbroath 1320, respectively, of the Gunpowder Plot 1604, Uprising in the French Vendee 1793, Mexican Civil War 1926-29, Spanish Civil War 1936-39, Von Stauffenberg ‘s Endeavor To Eliminate Hitler (1944) {An Analysis of the Endeavors of Those Such as Michael Collins in Ireland (1918-) Who It is RJM’s Understanding Never Sought the Approval of the Catholic Church Regarding Endeavors In Regard to Which RJM Would Understand That Such Approval Ought to Have Been Sought Prior to the Implementation Thereof Would Require Too Much Effort to Assess for References to Such Endeavors to Be Included Herein at This Juncture} And Amongst Those Conducted By Non-Catholics, Those Of The Battle Of Lexington Bridge 1775, John Brown’s Raid Of Harper’s Ferry (1859), The Battle For Athens Tn (1946) Each of Which Constituted a Slavery-abolishing Endeavor, Even if the Intended Objective was not Immediately Accomplished in a Given Example Floating measures to be used at various junctures concurrent with procession through Stage’s #1-9 included herein infra. Submission of evidence of violations of federal criminal laws to Judiciary Committees of U.S. Senate and/or House of Representatives, along with completed proposed congressional subpoenas, pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 592(g). Presentation of evidence to U.S. Attorney for …(given jurisdiction) pursuant to provisions of 18 USC 3332(a) in order to at least pre-empt claim from any Judiciary Committee member that any remedy alternative to that provided in 28 USC 592(g) would have been left unutilized. Access to a Federal Grand Jury in order to procure a presentment and appointments of special prosecutors (treatments of these issues will be provided in superseding components of this document. Endeavors to present evidence to state grand juries for violations of state criminal codes and/or procure probable cause audience(s) and for appointments of special prosecutors at the county level in regard whereto. The use of such type floating measures certainly would not be required in each and every dispute resolution project in which there would be provision for recourse to contra-predatory vigilante remedies unless prior utilizations of such type measures would have produced results demonstrating that the use of such in a given instance would not be unjustifiably burdensome. Still, endeavors to use such type remedies would have to be repeated periodically, as the contrary approach would not evidently adequately account for the fact that in past history, in various instances, despots have surrendered, the commitment of villains to continue perpetrating predations has been broken, injustices have been eliminated, predators incapacitated, detriment unjustly incurred has been eliminated, just retribution for injuries unjustifiably caused has been administered and righteousness has prevailed - at least temporarily in various times and places.

Stage 9 ISMA****** Common Law Tribunal or Similar Entity Issues Nihil Obstat (Confirming That “Nothing Stands In The Way” Ie That There Would Be Nothing Such Tribunal Would Have Found To Be Morally Unacceptable In A Proposed Order For The Issuance Of A Given Nihil Obstat Which Would Have Been Submitted Along With A Petition To Such Tribunal For A Given Nihil Obstat Authorizing the Use of Contra-Predatory Vigilante Force to Rectify a Given Injustice***** (Ie That A Given Cause Would Have Been Found To Have Been In No Way Morally Unjustified, And The Petitioner(s) In A Given Case Would Have Committed Himself And/Or Themselves To Restrict Any And/Or All Utilizations/Applications Of Physical Force For The Purposes Of The Rectification Of A Given Injustice, Solely To What Would Constitute In A Given Collection Of Circumstances, The Bare Minimum Quantum Of Force (see: Magna Charta Clause 61) Necessary To Accomplish An Objective In Terms Of The Prevention Of A Given Evil – The Importance Of The Prevention Of Which Would Have Been Found To Have Been Of Such Importance That the Non-prevention of Such Conjectural Evil Would Have Been Found To Have Been a Worse Condition, All Relevant Factors Considered, Than The Foreseeable Evil(s) That Might Or In A Given Case, Most Certainly Would, Result From The Utilization/Application Of Force Necessary To Prevent The Evil Certain Or Likely To Result From Not Resorting To The Use Of Force In A Given Case Under Consideration ***** (Declarations Of Post Facto Non-Presence Of Sinful Culpability For Measures Implemented In Exigent Circumstances For Predation Prevention/Injustice Rectification Without Pre-petition For Nihil Obstat And Other Type Declarations And Writs Are Also Available But Explanations And Forms Therefore are provided Elsewhere)

Stage 8 Relief Would Have Been Sought From U.S. Supreme Court According To Compliance-Accomplishment Formula For The Petitioning Thereof Described And Delineated In What Are Considered To Constitute The Definitive Treatises Published Upon The Subject Of Petitioning Such Tribunal.****

Stage 7 Petition Of Some Sort is Filed In Highest Court Of A Given State Which Does Not ______ Grant Relief Upon Petition Therefore To Such Court********______________________________________ (Note – Stage #’s 3,4,5 proceedings may move through the same channel(s) as Stage #2 activity)

Stage 6 - Appeal Filed In Federal Appellate Court Or In State Appellate Court of Stage #2 Activity

Stage 5 - Criminal and Civil Charges Instituted Against Anyone who Unjustifiably Interferes with Activity Conducted in Stage #4 Activity Referenced Herein

Stage 4 – Institution of Criminal Charges Sought and/or Instituted for Any Deprivation of a Constitutionally Protected Right and/or In Regard to the Commission of Any Other Crime Committed in the Adjudication of a Given Dispute

Stage 3 - Second Case Filed in U.S. District Court Trial Court Or In State Trial Court in Order to Procure Examination of Judge and Adversaries in First Case as It Proceeds so that if such Characters Will Not Agree to the “Contemporaneous Examination Litigation Formula” (For anyone who presumes that “trial court errors can be rectified upon review” if even the most cursory examination of the track records of the IL Appellate Ct. 1rst Dist and/or CCA 7 (that of CCA 7 J. D. Manion excepted) would not be enough to accomplish the disabusement of such notion, insanity or imbecility would have to be presumed).

Stage 2 - Case Filed In U.S. District Court Trial Court Or In State Trial Court

Stage 1 - Endeavors Not Involving Any Committee of 300 Controlled De Jure Government Entity Are Undertaken To Rectify A Given Injustice &/or Acceptably Remedy A Given Injury Unjustifiably Caused that Involve Proposals Re. Settlement Etc, (as Distinct from Morally Justified “Occult Compensation”).____________________________________________

START HERE: Problem – A Malefaction/ Injustice Is Perpetrated Causing An Unjustified Injury To A Given Actor “A” By Any Individual or Collection of Individuals Whose Activity Would Have Left Him, Her or Them Classified As A Type “B” Actor/Individual. (The Issue of Dispute Resolutions Involving Solely Type A’s is Addressed Elsewhere).

Many of the documents referenced in the footnotes contained herein have not yet, as of 8/24/11, been posted in the website whose URL is included in the ULC of this document. The prior website listed herein, infra, is defunct, and any documents referenced herein can be procured via contacting the "Contact Us" contacts listed in the presently operative website.

*The Bounty Arrangement for Post-Entrance of “A” Into Eternity Injustice Rectification of Dec. of 2007 is promulgated and described in a separate document posted here:

** The Proposal of Nov. 2007 For The Implementation Of Measures Which Would Make Provision For The Conducting Of A Criminal Trial In A Given TSM Controlled Court Without The Need For Any Subjection Of The Accused In A Given Case To Arrest And/Or Detention… (nor any of the other abusive and worse type predations for which this TSM controlled system has so distinguished itself), so that an acquittal might be procured which would render it unnecessary for a given vigilante protector/rescuer of the rule of law/insurrectionist/antigenocidist/not-altogether reprehensible and un-stalwartlike individual who would have rectified a given injustice via morally legitimate vigilante means and/or participation in an insurrection in a given case to spend his or her post-injustice rectification days in the earthly theatre “on the lam” with the correlative need to restrict his or her conducting of activity to underground agendas, objectives and approaches, is posted here:

***The Explanation Of Nov. 2007 Regarding The Disparities Between The Measures Of Legal Consideration Available… to those not members of the Predatory Class in ESMCA at this juncture in its continued descent into complete Talmudic barbarity, and what was available to those to whom was accorded the measure of consideration provided by the English Common Law of 1791 is posted here:

****The Notice of Non-legitimacy Non-finality (cf. Matt. 22:22, Acts 5:29, et al) of June 2002, in which is contained notice that _____________ does not accept edicts, orders, judgments and/or mandates that are not demonstrably morally legitimate is posted here:

***** The ISMACLT Rules of Dec. 2007 are posted here:

******The Charter of the Institute of St. Michael the Archangel is posted here:

*******Nihil obstats are most definitely available for Non-catholic individuals whose record of conduct would demonstrate that any given petitioner therefore could not justifiably be classified as the type of swine to which reference is made in Mt. 7:6, but are not available to individuals who would not have demonstrated at least enough respect for the identifiable “rights of God”, general probity of conduct and rectitude of intention in regard to a given form of relief that would ever be sought, to ensure that no nihil obstat would ever be issued on grounds less legitimate than were those upon which edicts and orders of the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church were issued in times past, unless and until a given not non-swine petitioner therefore would have jettisoned priorities, approaches, agendas and/or modus operandis which would indicate that no nihil obstat could be justifiably issued to a given petitioner therefore prior to a given juncture, and remained separated from whatever would have prevented the issuance of the nihil obstat in a given case for a period of time to be designated from the adjudication of a given petition therefore .

********Challenges to the Constitutionality as Applied of Nov. 2007 of statutes of limitations and various other deadlines given the unprecedented measure of control which the devil now exerts over the minds and wills of almost everyone involved in the activity of the legal system at this juncture are posted here:

# Criminal and/or civil proceedings may also be prosecuted against any judge, clerk, security officer, court reporter, attorney or anyone else conducting activity in any office or position who would commit in a given proceeding any unjustified injury-causing duty breach which would proximately cause a miscarriage of justice to result in a given criminal or civil proceeding involving “A” as there is no such thing as absolute immunity of any type in Roman Catholic morality nor is there any provision therein for any type of unconditional and/or unlimited abstention from the use of force against any predator of any sort, in circumstances in which means not involving the use of force would not have accomplished an objective, which at any given juncture, would have to have been accomplished in order for a given individual to ensure that his moral liability in regard to a given matter would not have been left not adequately covered.

#9 of D/L of 11/15/12

Proposed Ground Rules of 10/22/12

Update of 10/22/12 – a number of proposed updates formulated since 4/1/11 have not been included herein Case must be adjudicated according to standard of Court providing confirmation that: This Court has been informed that in regard to any activity ever conducted by any activity conductor which would result in a denial of any of the forms of consideration referenced in this document, that inter alia, in order to procure re-commissioning by the ISMA, that RJM is required by the COC of the ISMA to procure the equivalent of an adjudication of innocence or guilt at the level of a criminal conviction in regard to the activity of each and every activity conductor who would conduct activity in regard to the matters this order concerns.

If SCOTUS does not grant certiorari and does not provide explanation that reason for non-granting whereof was not that RJM did not adequately present and preserve any issues in regard to which cert would be sought, would Judge indemnify RJM for costs of ad damnum included in case or in re injunctive relief…..

updates in inchoate form for 3/28/11 –

include update of 3/28/11 re claim to consideration corresponding to DLRI of a type which has a.) been recognized in past Anglo-American History or in the alternative b.) has not been, but at least at this juncture, evidently ought to be

– opportunity to demonstrate the priorities according to which the activity of all actors conducting activity in a given instance in an arrangement equivalent in terms of accessibility of the public to evidence available regarding the priorities and methods according to which a given component of govt activity would ever be conducted to the “public trial” guaranteed in the 6th Amendment to the Const. of the u.s. of A., will be provided for any party demanding such for reasons obvious and possibly not immediately apparent –practically this will often necessitate on the spot depositions/examination upop to lock … suspected perpetrator or a predation, into factual predicates and the alleged legal basis of activity so that no predation perpetrator would ever succeed in escaping liability by having some morally bankrupt attorney coach him or her into “explaining away” activity which would be malicious in character according to some evidently plausible explanation, which right constitutes a right which all are necessarily obliged to accommodate to participate in the creation of a record of any and all court proceedings ever conducted, and any and all activity conducted relative to the adjudication of a given case of sufficient extensivity to prevent any perpetrator of any crime committed either in the substantive matters a given case concerns, or in its adjudication from succeeding in evading punishment demonstrably justifiably deserved for any perpetration whereof, - note

Exhibit Number ______ to Motion of ________________, in ___________________, in the ________________________________________________________

Note #1 – If it has not been included herein and at this late juncture, the author cannot even recall what all is included herein but would have to proceed point by point through each and every entry included herein infra before incurring any prejudice for not having made a given demand at a given juncture, a requirement requiring all parties and their attorneys to be subjected to depositions (which in many cases would be quite short) at every stage at which a given adversary would allege fraud or subterfuge, in every case in which either a request to admit the truth of some allegation or other would have been made and no admission whereof would have been provided in response whereto - in which case the costs of the proof of a claim which could have been admitted would have to be borne by the party against whom a given claim would have been proven, or in which the party demanding the deposition of a given adversary would need to proceed without the provision of any warning in regard to the topic(s) of a given deposition in order to ensure that no liar would ever succeed in “explaining away” any type of fraud, subterfuge or malefaction after having become apprised of the subject matter of a given deposition ever demanded – assessment of costs wherefore would be determined by a jury in some theatre or other.

Note: Some entries included herein may in a given instance still need to be augmented with “upon the reception of a demand wherefore” language in order to possess legitimacy, and any activity conductor demanding the addressing of the issues addressed herein reserves a claim to have such language added to any entry to which such language might ever have to be added in regard to a given matter.

First Rough Draft, Not Proofread, Subject to Innumerable Possible Revisions and Modifications of Robert J. More’s Proposed New 2007 Procedural Requirements as Ground Rules for Litigation in Cases Litigated in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, both criminal and civil, and to the extent in a given matter, such rules could be applied to the, _____________________________________ that such modifications be applied in those tribunals as well, which ____________is incorporating here as his own, Proposed in Consideration of the Gravity of the Peril in Which the Republic and the Non-counterfeit Version of the Rule of Law is Indisputably Found to be at this Juncture in the World’s Continued Descent to a Level of Barbarism, Which Given the Genocide in Progress, Even Possibly Far Exceeds That Described in Genesis 6:6 et seq., which Caused God to Then Greive, Regret Ever Having Made Man and to Rid the Face of the Earth of All but Eight Human Persons (Gen. 6: 6, et seq.).


Robert J. More has without assiduous reflection and consideration, to understate the case, included this no longer so short list of proposed revisements and modifications, out of what he subjectively apprehends to constitute a concern to spare others as much grief as RJM’s activity can be used to accomplish such objective, first and foremost, the grief of the ultimate calamnity of an eternal unimaginably miserable eternity, and second of the consequences of sin and sinful systems, structures and conditions, in this life namely the temporal miseries of poverty, disease, violence, the denial of the measure of autonomy which persons need to fulfill their potential and to conduct activity in this life, without anguish, bitterness and confusion, and the absence of clear standards upon which reliance can be justifiably predicated in a given instance; without RJM’s, in conducting his activity according to priorities, standards, agendas and methods not-evidently incompatible with such asserted concern, incurring culpability in anyone else’s sin (cf. Mt. 22:21, Acts 5:29, Rom. 14:23, 1 Tim. 5:22, Eph. 5:8, et al), and RJM admits that constructing such list without possessing any residence in which such can be constructed, nor even any electrical outlet after a certain hour, which can still be used, since it is New Year’s Eve on which this list is being composed, has left RJM susceptible to some resentments, which the enemy of the human race, he who unrelentingly goes about seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8), naturally will almost certainly endeavor to use to cause RJM’s judgment to be to some measure skewed (Mt. 7: 3-5), and to cause RJM to include in these proposed rule changes, material which upon reflection in regard thereto, RJM would eliminate therefrom. In short, RJM is not naturally grateful the persons whose conduct has resulted in the takeover of the monetary system of the U.S., of the instigation of two enormous world wars, the Russian Revolution, Spanish Civil War, most of the major assassinations and attempts thereof, the destructions of economies, innumerable false flag terror attacks, most recently that of 9/11/2001 and an incredibly substantial component of the aggregate of human suffering over the course of history of this world. While RJM continues to aspire to make progress in the practice of the virtue of meekness, even to begin to approach in some measure (even if only from afar and in the meagerest of measures) of the paragons of unobtrusiveness such as St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis De Sales and St. Vincent De Paul, as saints such as St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross, amongst other distinguished luminaries have defined the particular parts of the virtue of true meekness (as entirely distinct from culpable capitulation to manifest evils and innumerable other distortions of the true virtue), and that RJM recognizes that the saints who had truly mastered their carnal natures have far outperformed RJM’s paltry efforts to practice this virtue; RJM also has to continue to help oppose the monstrous wickedness of that same enemy of the human race who in this period is more than ever using his instrument of choice (Apoc. 2.9,. 3:9) to destroy everything God can still justify not hating, and if RJM has not succeeded in keeping the resentment he experiences when he considers the horrific consequences in this world and in RJM’s endeavors to procure for himself a happy ending and to help anyone else interested in doing likewise for him or her – self, to accomplish the same objective, towards those primarily responsible for such horrors, completely out of whatever is included herein infra, RJM would respectfully propose that no one who might consider any proposals contained herein to potentially constitute a part of a long term solution to the problems they address, permit any element of RJM’s wretchedness and/or defectiveness or frailty or just plain limitedness to unjustifiably effect whatever positive effects might come from an implementation of any given proposal included herein. RJM acknowledges the duty to be angry and sin not (Eph. 4:6) and that the anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God (Jas 1:20), and that he must never permit himself to succumb to any temptation of the devil, but rather to use whatever resentments he would ever experience in this carnal nature and whatever temptations the devil would use against RJM, to be not overcome by evil, but to use them to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). If anyone would inform RJM that it would be his or her opinion that there is either anything in this document or anything else, for that matter in anything that RJM has ever said, written or done, that would cause anyone to be unjustifiably subjected to any measure of hostility (since what is sown is inevitably reaped, the hostility engendered from wickedness, violence, cruelty, brutality and predations such as that encountered by the Republicans (ie. The Bolsheviks, Talmudists – whatever term would be used to describe them) from the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War would most definitely not be unjustified hostility but rather the natural fruits of endeavors to impose wickedness upon those who would refuse to render unto any Pharaoh (Ex. 5:___), Caesar (Mt. 22:21), collection of Rothschilds (Apoc. 3:9), or for that matter, any other collection of Golden Calf Worshippers, what in a given case would rightfully belong to God (cf. Mt. 22:22, Acts 5:29 et al.), in such scenario, RJM would make whatever revisions RJM would understand would have to be made to bring any unjustified activity into compliance with the requirements of the moral law as such would apply in a given case.

1. Court must sign under penalty of perjury that every word included in a given document has been read upon a proposal submitted in regard thereto on a timely basis or else upon a blanket arrangement submitted at the commencement of the adjudication of a given case which would be confirmed at the end thereof.

1.a) Court must either sign under penalty of perjury that there would have been no construction in a given conveyance which would not have been understood by the Court or provide notice regarding any conveyance(s) which the Court would claim would not have been understood by it, and provide explicit leave for amendment thereof and a subsequent adjudication regarding exactly what the author of a given conveyance intended to convey in a given conveyance.

2. The procedural history of case must be presented to a jury – even in matters such as motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment upon a proposal submitted in regard thereto on a timely basis via the maintenance of juries which upon demand therefore, would adjudicate whether a given case would have been adjudicated at a high enough level of accountability for any judgment emanating therefrom to possess any binding effect upon those subject to any judgment in regard therefrom and whether any member of any policing entity could enforce any given order without in so doing incurring criminal and/or civil liability.

3. Findings of fact and conclusions of law must be provided by the Court on some type of portable media device or via email or internet posting, upon a proposal submitted in regard thereto on a timely basis.

4. The use of a camcorder as an audio recording device, inside of every courtroom in every proceeding must be permitted upon a proposal submitted in regard thereto on a timely basis.

4.a The use of a camcorder or any audio-video recording device must be permitted in every interaction with every government official whether upon public or private property without the need for any express consent in regard thereto.

5. A judge, law clerk, clerk and/or security personnel must either sign a verified statement in regard to a particular claim or description of developments ever occurring in any given interaction with any person or party which would be directly or indirectly related to a given legal matter, or else participate in a deposition not too exceed three times the length of the duration of a given interaction for interactions less than ten minutes in length, twice the time … for interactions between 11 and 45 minutes length and the same amount of time for interactions exceeding 46 minutes in length, except that there would be an appropriately sliding scale for those interactions between 46 minutes and 90 minutes in length, upon a proposal submitted in regard thereto on a timely basis.

6. No immunity from civil suit will ever be permitted for judges (except upon the submission of a voluntary express waiver in regard thereto by a litigant seeking to have a given judge adjudicate his or her case – with appropriate provision for an adversary to contest such appointment and agree to waive or commit to refusing to waive a claim to concede or not concede immunity in a given case) nor for any other activity conductors, according to: the provisions of the right to petition clause of the U.S. Constitution anchored in the provisions of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Clause 61 of the Magna Charta et al (the formula in regard to which ultimately emanates from the requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Commandments of the Decalogue).

7. Electronic docketing, access to all documents filed in each and every case and e-filing in every case.

8. Every attorney must sign his or her name and attorney number on a roster upon entering and leaving a given courtroom, so that if a judge or an attorney commits any type of unjustified injury causing duty breach, the victim thereof can know the names of the witnesses who are obliged under the RPC to report certain duty breaches committed by attorneys, and upon the demand thereofor by a given person claiming to have been unjustifiably injured by the activity of some attorney, to provide either a verified statement of what would have been witnessed in a given case or a refusal to provide such with an explanation for such conjectural refusal or a refusal to even provide this but in this case to sign a document admitting that such last among the refusals could not possibly have been made in good faith in the absence of the provision of an explanation in regard to the selection of such alternative.

9. Every judge upon the demand therefor by a given person claiming to have been unjustifiably injured by the activity of some attorney, is required to provide either a verified statement of what would have been witnessed in a given case or a refusal to provide such with an explanation for such conjectural refusal or a refusal to even provide this but in this case to sign a document admitting that such last among the refusals could not possibly have been made in good faith in the absence of the provision of an explanation in regard to the selection of such alternative.

10. The name of the law clerk, minute clerk, and security representative for a given judge must be placed on the bench next to the name of the judge, where everyone in the courtroom can see it.

11. Every law clerk upon demand therefore by a given person claiming to have been unjustifiably injured by the activity of some attorney, is required to provide either a verified statement of what would have been witnessed in a given case or a refusal to provide such with an explanation for such conjectural refusal or a refusal to even provide this but in this case to sign a document admitting that such last among the refusals could not possibly have been made in good faith in the absence of the provision of an explanation in regard to the selection of such alternative.

12. Every Judge, upon submission of a petition by a litigant in this regard, must sign a verified statement indicating whether or not he or she has taken at any juncture any oath or made any affirmation incompatible with oaths and/or affirmations to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and of the State of Illinois.

13. Every Judge, upon submission by a litigant of a petition in this regard, must sign a verified statement indicating whether or not he or she is convinced that there is an objective standard of morality according to which any and all exercise(s) of the authority of a judicial office which would ever be exercised would have to be exercised in order for (a) given such exercise(s) in a given case to be legitimate and to impose any obligation upon anyone to comply with a given order that would ever be issued in a given case, and that mal, mis and/or culpable non-feasance in regard to both the fulfillment of the duties of a given office and in regard to every area of one’s conduct will be punished in eternity and that no member(s) of any class of persons would ever be subjected to conduct prejudicial to him, her or them, due to race, ethnicity, nationality, ancestry, sex or physical handicap, or any other criteria over which no person would have control via any exercise of any judicial authority, unless such matter would constitute an issue in a given case.

14. Requirement that no statute of limitations, Supreme Court time limit rule or deadline for the completion of a given task or suchlike issue ever be adjudicated independent of the issues of the material, political, social, financial, physical, moral and psychological conditions of the various parties involved in a given dispute, nor independently of the conditions of the tribunals, nor of the societal conditions, in which a given case would stand to be adjudicated.

15. Provision that the first judge to whom a given case would be assigned can recuse him or herself, without the provision of any explanation therefore, in every case.

16. Requirement that Judge, all clerks and security personnel sign documents confirming that it is understood by each and everyone of them that the Magna Charta is the enabling document (actually emanating itself out of the Charter of Liberties of 1100 A.D.) of the constitutions authorizing the exercise(s) of authority of a given and every office and that pursuant to Clause 61, thereof, that no one is above the law, no matter what his or her office or station, and that there is no such thing as any type of legitimate immunity from the consequences of one’s unjustified injury - causing duty breaches, but that in a given case, a given litigant can sue and criminally prosecute a judge, clerk or security operative, or in a given case, if no adequate remedy can be procured whereby, simply resort to the use of a Contra-predatory Vigilante Remedy in order to adequately remedy any injury ever unjustifiably inflicted.

17. Requirement that a litigant and/or his or her legal representative(s) be subject to civil and/or criminal prosecution and correlatively, can likewise be sued or criminally prosecuted by a judge, clerk or security operative for any unjustified injury-causing duty breach ever committed by him or her regarding a given case.

18. Posting on a wall in each courtroom and in the plazas of the courthouse the contents of the story of Daniel Chapter 13, Ex. 20 13 & 14, John 2:15 et seq. Magna Charta Clause 61, and excerpts from Pope Pius XII’s Christmas Message of 1956, and the wording of the right to petition, due process and equal protection clauses of, and the entirety of the Second and Thirteenth Amendments to, the U.S. Constitution with an explanation that the consideration that an able-bodied person must procure and receive in any and every court proceeding is not anything less than what Susanna received in Dan. Ch 13, from the Govt (ie the King in that case) (namely, Daniel, on behalf of Susanna and the interest all innocent and not consciously purposefully, wicked, persons, persons who would have the interest described in the axiom Qui nocentibus parcit, innocentibus punit had in ensuring that an innocent woman was not put to death and that false accusers did not get away with their falsehoods, was permitted to prosecute that case to a sufficient extent to ensure that there was no relevant issue material to the outcome of that case whose bottom was left unscraped and no issues not turned inside out and in regard to which a negative definition –ie a what cannot not be definition was not procured) in order to justify the continued abstention from the taking of recourse to the means Providence has provided for the resolution of disputes that cannot otherwise be acceptably resolved – the use of what in a given case would constitute the non-excessive and not otherwise unjustified use of force, namely that except as a given party would demonstrably culpably negligently neglect to adequately avail himself of any legitimate opportunity that would have been available to vindicate his or her claims in a legal proceeding, that neither any legitimate claim to any form of consideration, nor the claim to protect and/or vindicate such claim via the use of force could ever be lost due to the mis or mal feasance of any other party or entity involved in a given adjudication.

19. Disarming of all security personnel in court buildings, except for at checkpoints for the entry into and exit from, such buildings, or in the alternative, at least the removal of any firearm and/or taser or OCD and/or pepper type spray from the possession of such persons, rather than having to resort to the more potentially destructive alternative of permitting individuals to bring weapons and body armor into the building to counter the enormous problems created by the disparity of weaponry between the government and those on the one hand, who unjustifiably manipulate its organs for their own illegitimate benefits at the expense of those without positioning in a given conflict that is as favorable, and the unarmed individuals on the other hand, who endeavor to vindicate claims in the arrangement that now prevails in the court system under consideration..

20. Declare the period since 9/11/2001 until whatever date it would be upon which the Federal Reserve Bank would be eliminated and the Rothschilds and the other nine banking families who have accumulated the hundreds of trillions of dollars that they have accumulated from the control of the money supply of the U.S. and whatever other Countries have had their money supplies fraudulently and criminally overthrown and controlled by them a “Genocide in Progress” period and treat all cases filed by or against those engaged in combating such genocide according to the same standards as are treated those cases filed by or against those in the formal service of the present de jure government’s military.

21. Require the emailing of each and every document ever filed in a given case (except where to do so would be practically impossible) to adversaries possessing a valid email address, so that it is not unjustifiably difficult and expensive for parties with legitimate claims to expose and overcome the types of patently vacuous, frivolous and malicious claims and defenses that licensed attorneys submit to tribunals on a regular basis, when representing a corporation and/or government entity being sued by a non-attorney or a single practitioner or member of a small law firm.

22. Permit private citizens to prosecute ARDC and JIB complaints so as to eliminate the problem of the conflict of interest in the preservation of the market value of the law license, the benefit of “insider arrangements and deals” and the preservation of the status quo, which at this juncture in history is one in which Talmudism (a religion whose foremost authoritative source – the Talmud was ordered burned no less than three times in the Thirteenth Century by various Popes who were not unfamiliar with the horrors and abominations contained in the unedited, unsanitized for “goy assessment, examination and consumption”, versions thereof and of the destructiveness upon every foundation of civilization of that “document published in hell” ) which none but the rarest of exceptions of an attorney –one in whom there would be an adequately adjusted arrangement of priorities and sufficient moral fiber to exercise the authority of a law license and of a given office according to a minimally morally acceptable standard, could realistically be expected to overcome.

23. Provision that those who have been made homeless by their continued abstention from the use of non- excessive and not-otherwise unjustified force in the resolution of disputes and/or those who have been three times accused within a five year period of being anti-semitic or as having a reputation for being anti-semitic, while never deviating in their conduct in any substantial manner from the requirements of the Fifth Commandment and of the edicts of Sicut Didum (1437), Sublimus Dei (Pope Paul III, 1539 ?) Mit Brennender Sorge (Pope Pius XI, 1937) can choose their own judges both at the trial and appellate level, given the comparatively enormous difficulty that those lacking residences would and do have in litigating matters and given the injury in terms of ostracization that indisputably is incurred, when in a Country such as the one in which this document has been composed in which the defacto religion of such Country is Talmudism and the supply of money is controlled by persons (all Talmudists) who do not consider non-jews to even be human persons but consider such persons to be goyim.

24. Permit use of all staircases to those who would sign an acceptably worded and negotiated, waiver of liability in this regard.

25. Require attorneys to be subjected to the exact same procedures and processes regarding security as those who represent themselves in court proceedings.

26. Require Court to explicitly confirm that it has been informed that the program of persons such as R J More (“RJM”) (unless RJM’s name could be left out of the matter, which RJM would certainly prefer) (for the benefit of anyone who might ever howsoever end up reading this document, who do not know, who RJM is, he is an admittedly lowly, embattled and beleaguered, and most definitely, comparatively - as relates to his status in this earthly life - personally, very unimportant, unemployed, former truck driver, whose endeavors to vindicate claims he has subjectively apprehended he has been obliged to endeavor to vindicate through existing court systems combined with his continued abstention from the participation in the use of what would have constituted in a given case, the non-excessive and not-otherwise unjustified use of force, has left him without a vehicle, residence, or bank account regarding the agenda to close down all courts operative in Cook County IL, both state and federal, at this juncture, is one which would most definitely not exclude adequate provision to accommodate what could be in a given case, identified to constitute the legitimate reliance interest of all of those whose activity as employees and agents and actors of various types in such systems, has rendered them undeserving of being classified as miscreants, liabilities, damage-doers, derelicts, and/or blights or banes upon everything worth defending and preserving upon the stage of salvation history; is only what RJM and others similarly situated are convinced is the only morally legitimate alternative available at this juncture given the comparatively enormous destructiveness of the activity of such systems relative to the foundations of civilization and everything that God can still justify not hating, which has been demonstrated by the activity thereof over the period of years in regard to which RJM has had the opportunity to assess the effects of such activity.

27. Requirement that upon petition in regard thereto, that any judge so petitioned would either declare him or herself to be either pro-courts of unbridled and absolute discretion (ie –the law is whatever the judge says it is in a given case) to which reference will be herein made as the pro-Rothschild controlled Reign of Terror Agenda or pro-slavery, pro-genocide of the goyim position (which is a de facto categorical deference to the prevailing caste system/evilarchy presently prevailing in the u.s. of A.), or anti-unbridled and absolute discretion, to which reference will be herein made as the anti-slavery, anti-genocide position or else present an argument explaining why in a given case, a given judge would claim that it would be in the best interest(s) of the Resurrection of the Rule of Law Movement (aka the Anti-Genocide Movement) or otherwise not-evidently-justified, for such judge to defer any explanation in such regard to a future date, or to not address the issue at all.

28. Requirement that pictures of the consequences of unmonitored govt activity and the exercise of discretion by persons in whom there is not a demonstrably adequately adjusted fear of the consequences in eternity of not satisfying the requirements of the moral law in a given exercise of authority, in cases in which such sins would not have been adequately repented of before the death of a given exerciser of authority who would have been culpable in this regard, be posted in the plaza of each courthouse ie. starting with piles of the bodies of baptized persons tortured and murdered and slaughtered in Russia in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and in the Leninist Regime , in the Hungarian takeover in 1918 and the Kuhn regime and in Spain in 1936 due to the control of the U.S. Govt by the Talmudists at that juncture.

29. Require all judges to swear an oath or commit to an affirmation declaring the abdominal character of the Talmud, and a commitment to refuse to participate in any of the types of malice and depravity contained therein, and to refuse to consider any human person who would ever participate in any court proceeding to be subhuman.

30. Require all judges to refuse to permit any governmental official to accept federal reserve notes as payment for any fee, debt or fine ever legitimately imposed, or owed, pursuant to the provisions of …..

31. Some type of provision, including various types of incentives and/or disincentives to deter the non-vitandus Judges in the County from retiring upon reaching 20 years of service as a judge, so that persons far less capable, qualified, conscientious and courageous are not enabled via retirements to procure judicial positions.

32. Provision for certain judges to be brought up on the petition therefore by a given litigant to adjudicate a given appeal, the prospect of which alone would so greatly diminish the enormously negative and injurious effect that the present lamentable and abysmal condition of the First District Appellate Court causes – namely it induces and encourages deep-pocketed parties to abuse and defraud the system in trial court proceedings, upon the presumption that no matter what occurs in a Cook County Trial Court, evil and money ALWAYS AND WITHOUT EXCEPTION PREVAIL IN THE FIRST DISTRICT IL APPELLATE COURT as the devil possesses an almost complete if not actually entirely complete, stranglehold on such Court, which is considered by many to be as bad a court as there is anywhere in the Fifty Talmudic States of Amerika at this juncture in its descent into total barbarism, even as horrible as the hell-full-of-horrors that is the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 102912 16:15

33. Requirement that every judge take an oath or affirmation to do whatever would be necessary in a given case and in every case ever before him or her, to ensure that he or she would never decide a case based upon his or her unwillingness and/or incapacity to resist the temptation to which he or she might ever be subjected to permit him or her-self to be intimidated out of the duty ever imposed by sources of authority controlling the exercise of the authority of a given office, regardless of how many pictures he or she has seen or stories he or she has read of the horrors that Talmudists have perpetrated upon baptized persons, especially those who refuse to betray their baptismal promises and render unto the Rothschilds what rightfully belongs to God (cf. Mt. 22:21, Rev. 3:9) in any period of history in which Talmudism has gained supremacy such as that in which this document has been composed.

34. Require each and every Judge to sign under oath or affirmation a statement affirming that he or she (“he”) understands that a court which conducts its activity upon an absolute discretion standard is not just an abomination to God and a menace to everything that God can still justify not hating, but is conducting its activity according to a standard entirely incompatible with the requirements of Article VI, the prohibition on slavery clause of the Thirteenth, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendments, to the U.S. Const., and the principles articulated regarding substantive due process violations of inalienable rights, and that former Chief Justice Marshal agreed that there is absolutely nothing in the Eleventh Amendment to that Constitution prohibiting a citizen from suing his or her own state for deprivations and injuries caused by its actors and agents.

35. Require whomever signs the paychecks for the acceptably accountable Judges to discontinue the withholding of any federal income tax from the compensation and benefit packages of such Judges, so that inter alia the opportunities for employment off the bench are not as appealing relatively, as the prospects of remaining on the bench for a given Judge who requires him or her self to keep all exercises of authority within acceptable standards of accountabity.

36. Requirement that every judge to whom a given case would be assigned would sign a statement under penalty of perjury that he or she would understand that given the conditions in which the Court Systems in this Country are presently found to be and the social order within which such Courts operate is found to be, that the objective of the financially and politically less favorably positioned party in a given dispute must be, not to prevail in the case in the trial court, nor even upon appeal (an almost impossible task – given the lamentable conditions of reviewing courts in this Country at all levels, at this juncture in the descent back into barbarism) but rather to preserve all legitimate claims and protect the claim to vindicate such claims via vigilante means and/or after the completion of a successful domestic insurrection – which distinction obviously bears profound implications for the issue of relevancy in a given case, as what would not be relevant for those depending upon the adequate functioning of the court system for the rectification of injustices would be in no way irrelevant for those committed to ensure that what would constitute their moral liability in a given case would not be left uncovered due to their not having utilized the means which Providence has provided for the vindication of claims and interests in regard to which a given person or party would understand that an accounting would have to be provided (in other words confirmation that a given judge understands that litigation in which any member of ISMA is involved or ….. is conducted according to the presumption that it is a foregone conclusion that no minimally acceptable remedy will ever be procured in regard to a given dispute except via either a floating measure or in stages #7-16 of the RCDRC (see URL in ULC “(RCDRC3-11)”.

37. Build either a plexiglass wall with a sound system or some type of a barrier in the form of steel bars between the judicial bench and the area in which the advocates and everyone else abides and functions, and eliminate all of the courtroom deputies in all but criminal cases except two for each floor to handle what are disturbances or demonstrations of disrespect not provoked, instigated, educed, induced or otherwise caused by any predatory activity conducted by any judge, clerk or attorney.

38. Require judges to abstain from deliberately smiling for any photographer (not applicable to a situation in which someone would inadvertently appear to be smiling and be caught in such posture on camera) and require any judge whose picture would end up in any publication which any member of the public would see and report to pay the costs of the publication of a formal apology to that component of the members of the public who are so distressed by the present conditions and activity of the court systems and the great majority of the judges in them at this juncture (the “outsiders” the “goyim”, those targeted for extermination or reprogramming and categorical enslavement (Georgia Guidestones et. al), as this requirement would hopefully prevent the escalation of resentments which occurs when those victimized by illegitimate, unjustified, tortuous and/or criminal judicial conduct encounter pictures in publications in which those considered by them to be either the, or at least one of the, chief, source(s) of their distress, infliction and hardship in a present case would appear to be demonstrating a wanton disregard and unconcern for the unjustified injury that would have been caused by his, her, and/or their activity in the adjudication of a given case (the sight of someone such as the Chief Judge grinning ear to ear in so many published pictures of him, given the unjustified and unconscionable injuries that burden-bearers sustain every hour in the system he oversees from the misconduct of judges and attorneys whose conduct, as RJM understands the matter, he is obliged to report, and above all that incurred by the victims of homosexual adoption (which is of course, really just legally sanctioned abduction and who can bear to even consider what else – except for purposes of ensuring that the perpetrators do not remain unpunished for their atrocities) can only cause anyone not entirely oblivious to the contents of Mt. 18:6 to cringe at the thought of the accounting that will have to be provided in regard to this matter.

39. Require the establishment and declaration of a day on various levels of judicial penance and atonement.

40. Include a downlink on the Court’s website, or from the Court’s website to websites, containing the publication of nihil obstats for judges whose conduct has been found to have been conducted at a consistently, without exception, acceptable level of accountability and who correlatively have evidently demonstrated a condition of "non-unfitness" for the holding and exercise of the authority of a given office.

41. Regarding IL Supreme Court Rule 298 Petitions submitted to Room 2005 as of the First Quarter of 2007, to require that no such petition be denied, without its first having been submitted to one of the following judges who have demonstrated a conspicuous capacity in adversarial contested proceedings of keeping the exercise of authority of a given exercise of authority, upon the protective side of the protective-predatory fault line – for torts – Judges Ward, K. Flanagan, Duncan Brice, or McDunn (there is no intention here to slight anyone, but rather it is the case, that there are a number of judges in that division who have demonstrated the capacity described supra and the proposed referrals are restricted to those judges in regard to whose activity RJM is to some measure cognizant as it concerns the threshold of compliance-accomplishment herein described). RJM is cognizant of the types of problems that have plagued the 298 petition process in the Law Division as being present in other Divisions at this time and in fact is cognizant that the First Municipal and Chancery Judges with whose activity RJM is cognizant regarding the 298’s have with some exceptions demonstrated an incapacity to adequately adjudicate 298’s.

42. Prohibition upon any assessments of and/or rulings upon issues concerning passage of time, such as any issue concerning any statute(s) of limitations, establishment of deadlines, missing of deadlines, DWP’s and/or motions for continuance(s) by anyone other than a jury of the peers of a given litigant who would ever be/have been subject(ed) to the incurment of any adverse judgment attributable to any alleged non-execution of any affirmative act(s) and/or the non-accomplishment of any objective w/n any given time period except via the provision of a signed confirmation of consent by a given activity conductor ever in a posture of being subjected to the type of detriment such matters involve, given the unlikelihood that anyone in the position of Former SCOTUS Chief “Justice” Taney could ever understand at a minimally acceptable level the burdens, constraints and afflictions to which someone in the position of Dred Scott was subjected and given that the u.s. of A. at present is most definitely a Talmudic Controlled Police State and that members of the Slavemaster Class (“insiders”) wherein (which definitely includes judges – even if not all judges are slavemasters), would be highly unlikely to understand just how burdensome, afflicting and distressful life as a member of the slave class (“outsiders”) in the caste system which presently prevails in the u.s. of A. indisputably is – an arrangement in which almost nothing any judge would ever do would be considered a crime and almost nothing any of (us) slaves would ever do would not be considered a crime. (See Ken D’Oudney –Article on Jury Nullification). - 102912

Vacate the criminal code as such might ever be applied to the conduct of RJM in any endeavors he might ever incept for purposes of rectifying injustice(s) and or… or in the alternative declare the unconstitutionality as it would be applied to the conduct of RJM in ….

The only individual who is ultimately benefiting from the constraints existing structures and systems impose upon the activity of RJM is the devil

Submitted for consideration and comment by (any and all comments sincerely provided would be appreciated and hopefully incorporated into the next revision of these proposed rule changes): Robert J. More (Rom. 12:21) – Assistant But Not By Express Delegation To (Someone Familiar With RJM’s Modus Operandi Might Be Tempted To Think RJM Was Going To Write “Chief Justice J. Roberts” Here, But This Is Not The Case, As Since It Is The Case That There Is No Reason To Believe That A Critical Mass Of Those Amongst The Over 80 Million Gun Owners In This Country, In Whom The Voice Of Conscience Has Not Yet Been Entirely Extinguished, Cannot Do At Least As Well Against The Contemporary Talmudist Menace As The Spanish Loyalists Did In The Spanish Civil War In 1936-39 Against Their Predecessors, There Is No Need For Any Assistance From Any Court, Including The U.S. Supreme Court, To Vindicate The Interests Of Almighty God Against The Wicked And Ungodly) Jesus Christ, Christus Regnat And His Immaculately Conceived And Ever Virgin And Spotlessly Pure And By Her Veritably Astounding Demonstration Of Humility, Now Forever Exalted, Mother – [She, Who As A 16 Year Old Girl, By Her Fiat Mihi, Secundum Verbum Tuum, Put In Motion The Historical Chain Of Events Which Forever Doomed Lucifer’s Hideous Agenda For The Human Race And Without Whose Cooperation The Poor Banished Children Of Eve, Would Have Had To Have Remained Banished From The Inheritance Her Fidelity Enabled Jesus To Make By His Suffering, Death and Resurrection, Available To All Of Those Who Carry Their Own Personal Crosses and Bear Their Share of the Burden Referenced in Matt. 11:30, After His Example.]

P.O. Box 6926

Chicago, IL 60680

_ HYPERLINK "" _thirstforjustice@yahoo.com_

anselm45 - <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Proposed Rules Addendums combined for all after 1/1/07, later 3/24/11 (inchoate constructions included herein infra can be disregarded for the time being with the consent of the postulator whereof) and the or else: As an alternative to the implementation of the proposed revisions of the rules submitted along herewith, the closing down of the entire court systems according to an agenda that would not leave the legitimate reliance interests of those who have labored in such systems to the net benefit or at least a break-even level for, the Non-counterfeit Version of the Roman Catholic Church, not demonstrably adequately accomodated would be a possibility infinitely preferable to the preservation of the presently prevailing status quo. But, even if the systems in their present conditions could not be closed without leaving such reliance interests not adequately accommodated, the closing down of the systems without any such accommodation, as lamentable as it would indisputably be for those who would have foregone opportunities in the private sector which would have been more lucrative than a career or stint, as the case might be in a given instance, in public service, or who would have distinguished themselves by selfless service to the true common good via their conduct as public servants, or even just those who would have refused to make any unjustified concessions to complacency, and whose intolerance of mediocrity, sloth, apathy and selfishness and unwillingness to make any unjustified concessions thereto would have redounded to the common good, would not be protected from a non-honoring of any given legitimate reliance interest, it would still obviously, and this statement is not just the subjective opinion of this one not-altogether comatose in conscience penitent, be incomparably less difficult to justify the complete and even permanent closing of the system in its present condition, than the maintenance in existence of a court system which would permit so much as one adoption of an innocent and defenseless child by a homosexual, nay as would permit so much as the laying of the hand of a homosexual or any other predator for that matter upon any child, period (Mt. 18:6)

And if this is still too soft and unjustifiably conciliatory in tone, then RJM will just have to augment it when time permits.

In any situation in which more security would be utilized than is ordinarily utilized, the parties involved would be permitted to address everyone in the Courtroom for a period not exceeding 120 seconds each, to eliminate any unfavorable consequences that might result from inferences that might be drawn from such extraordinary use of security measures.

Some type of provocation jury instruction in cases in which judges or attorneys would have force used against them by common citizens who would claim that he, she or they, would have been victimized by lawyer or judicial crimes, torts and/or predations of whatever sort; which would demonstrate a concern for the innumerable victims of lawyer and judicial crimes and predations, without unjustifiably reducing the disincentives now in place which serve to deter aggression against acceptably accountable judges and attorneys - via the operation of penalties for any use of force that might be unjustifiably employed against an acceptably accountable judge or attorney.

Add a representative of every policing entity which it could reasonably be foreseen in a given case might be summonsed to enforce an order emanating from a given case to the adjudication of such case (as some type of third party observer), so that no one ever summonsed to enforce a given order could justifiably claim that he or she was convinced in good faith that a given void or otherwise illegitimate order could have been enforced without the incurrment by any enforcer thereof or attempted enforcer thereof of tort and/or criminal liability. #’s 1-30 correlate to #’s 48-76

see relevance – defined according to retention of claim to rectify…vacate entirety of criminal code prohibit any entity from

Addendum of 1/14/07 to Proposed Ground Rules –later 3/24/11 (prior postulation re entries included herein in inchoate form also herein applicable)

Provision of body guards for some number of judges who would have demonstrated an unwillingness to render unto the Rothschilds what would rightfully belong to God in a given case (see Mt. 22:22 et al) , or to otherwise permit themselves to be intimidated, or betray their oaths of office, or disregard the requirements of the moral law as they would be applicable to a given exercise of authority.

relevance – defined in a given proceeding according to retention of claim to rectify…a given dispute via use of a contra-predatory vigilante remedy

vacate entirety of criminal code p

rohibit any entity from preventing use of the stair cases in courthouses – save time, opportunity to stimulate bloodflow, expiate sins and relieve stress long shadow of Richman v Sheahan, T.Schiavo, Roe v Wade and Federal Reserve Act of 1913 explanation explains how …. Is compatible with art IV, standard of absolute discretion is compatible with thirteenth Amend, substantive due process

Require stipulation regarding a standard according to which litigants and court can conduct their activity respectively so as to not be subjected to liability under 18 USC 242, conversely a standard according to which such activity must be conducted in order to avoid such liability and if no standard can be negotiated, use the ROL/ROT standard RJM has constructed.

Requirement as a requisite for participation in a given case as a litigant, judge or law clerk that anyone interested in participating in any given case would sign a statement that the postulator of any postulation that a given conveyance would be unintelligible, non-sensical or would contain veiled threats of violence, would be subject to the burden of demonstrating that a given conveyance fit such description via the demonstrating of the substance of any such type claim, assessed against an acceptable objective standard in regard to whatever type of claim would have been posited in a given case, respectively. ill app court – efiling, edocket, e service

What is the reasoning justifying the non-publication of IL Supreme Court votes? Who decided that the public is not entitled to know how each justice voted on each petition? How can one know if one's petition was read at all or by someone who is not just a law clerk? Is there a limit to the number of petitions they can grant in a given period? Do the justices read every petition first then go back and decide which ones they will accept, or is the assessment and adjudication process conducted on a decide them as they read them, one after another, basis? Are the votes of the various judges known to the other judges? Are the cases assessed by the Justices in their separate offices or in a convocation? Do the judges deliberate amongst one another before deciding which petitions to grant and which to deny? If there are deliberations conducted regarding petitions, what is the argument justifying not permitting the public to assess the content of such deliberations? What can be justifiably concluded re the process and methods applied in such ventures? Does the activity of the Court provide enough benefit, to offset the expenses and harms the activity thereof costs and causes respectively, that its continued existence and operation is justified or would Contra-barbarians not be much better off without the system? How would one obtain the bar registration numbers of any and all law clerks that would participate in a given adjudication? Can RJM obtain such information in this case? Thank you by anticipation for whatever information can be obtained in this regard, and to all those who by their conduct have rendered themselves unworthy of having to be subjected to the injustices and afflictions inflicted regularly through the conduct of Illinois Courts, an apology for whatever is RJM’s share of the blame for the present conditions of such Courts [which is, on the whole, deplorable, or maybe, considering that innocent children are subjected to being adopted by homosexuals in IL at this juncture through such Courts and that abortionists can use such Courts to continue to murder babies and that pornographers can continue to use them to disseminate their filth, even, notwithstanding the edifying conduct of various judges, clerks, security personnel, and law librarians et al, abominable might be the more easily justified adjective] is herein extended, Make adequate provision for commensurate body protection and weaponry of everyone not possessing any record of violence in all government buildings at all junctures or eliminate the functions governments are supposed to perform in any situation in which it would be claimed such objective cannot be accomplished. 11112 Supreme Court Rule 63 – one means of eliminating the indignity and absence not only of decorum but anything remotely resembling an acceptable measure of accountability – need for audio-video of each and every proceeding to deter the types of abuses, defraudments, malefactions, predations and crimes that have become the customary modus operandi according to which most Cook County Circuit Court proceedings in regard to which RJM has been cognizant have been conducted <<<<<<<<<<<<< Either eliminate the presumption that individuals in positions of govt. authority will conduct activity according to acceptable standards on any type of code of honor, not unworthy of the appellation, or eliminate all govt activity that would not be compatible with the presumption that those subjected to it in a given case do not need to be constrained by any fear of getting caught and punished for culpable non, mis and/or mal-feasance, but rather that like govt officials ought be accorded a presumption that they will conduct their activity according to the same type code of honor (in which case, at least in this area, a double standard will have been eliminated) or if the first or second options would not be chosen, then predicate all rules on the solid ground basis of the fear of getting caught and punished for any culpable non, mis or mal-feasance for both govt officials and those who constitute the ‘people” as in “We the People….” (D.C. v Heller (_U.S._)). 29. In sum – either everyone’s activity ought to be regulated solely on an honor code or no one’s activity ought to be, or activity ought not be regulated at all, or everyone’s activity ought to be regulated according to the presumption that the prospect of punishment for morally unacceptable activity is always and ever necessary to deter predatory activity - standard. 30. As an addition to the proposal that a Plexiglas shield be build to be kept between the court and the parties and/or their advocates, it is herein demanded that such measure be implemented without delay as such entity would forever eliminate the pretext so frequently used as a justification for a given Court’s not addressing a given issue or not addressing it adequately and then having it hold someone in contempt of court, that the Judge “felt” threatened. With this ruse removed, Judges will not be capable of silencing those advocating interests incompatible with the interest to keep govt activity unmonitored, and any evidence of malice and criminality which would ever be in existence in a given instance, suppressed, concealed and unexposed. 77. See Griffith injunctive relief and proposed statutes, no criminal prosecutions re activity conducted upon any govt property unless arrestee receives audio-video recording of entirety of activity which constitutes basis for arrest in a given instance. 78. 28 USC 2241, making of names and addresses e…. available as condition, Court must sign document re what docs it has received and read before any proceeding commences, 79. Upon transfer of case, new judge must read all docs filed prior to his or her participation in case, except those in re which express disclaimer is provided and provide signature confirming that such objective would have been accomplished. 80. Any and all judges, government attorneys, security activity conductors and clerks involved in a given interaction and/or activity are required to commit under penalty of perjury to a description of factual predicates of a given encounter, either affirming or denying such (no refusal for this type of consideration may ever be kept from a jury) – upon reception of a demand wherefore-------------and any denial of such not accompanied by factual claims provided to allegedly rebut any factual claims contested or otherwise not stipulated at the earliest possible non-emergency juncture, will be construed to constitute an admission of the legitimacy of the factual claims not suchlike contested in a given instance. 81. Any and all judges, government attorneys, security activity conductors and clerks involved in a given interaction and/or activity are required – upon reception of a demand wherefore-------------to commit under penalty of perjury to the identification of an alleged legal basis according to which a given exercise of authority would ever have been exercised in a given encounter and any defense to any claim of any type which might ever be posited subsequent to such juncture will be limited to the explanation provided at the juncture at which a given explanation would have been provided, and if no identification of such type basis would be provided in a given instance, if a private citizen were to venture a given identification of such basis, and a given government official who would have been a participant in a given interaction to neither affirm nor deny such (no refusal for this type of consideration may ever be kept from a jury), the non-provision of any contesting of any such type identification not accompanied by any explanation demonstrating the legitimacy of any non-provision of such, will be construed to constitute an admission of the legitimacy of the allegation(s) regarding such basis which would have been posited by the non-government official in this construct, since such would not have been contested after opportunity to contest such would have been present. 82. Upon the reception of notice that a given activity conductor would be accusing a given judge, SAC and/or clerk ("JSC") of having perpetrated a deprivation of a right guaranteed by the constitution and/or laws of the u.s. of A., and/or of violating any criminal and/or penal law, the non-addressing at the earliest non-emergency juncture of a given accusation would result in the relinquishing of any claim to present any argument in the defense of any claim in which he or she (JSC) would be a defendant in the future, that he or she would not have received opportunity to make modifications of his, her and/or their, activity adequate to enable him, her or them to evade the incurrment of civil &/ or criminal liability. 83. Upon the reception of a demand for a clarification whether a given course of activity alleged to constitute any type of deprivation of a legitimate reliance interest, predation, arrogation, transgression and/or imposition of a false morality(“DPATI”) which would ever have been executed, conducted &/or perpetrated ("ECP") , would have been ECP for the purpose of the instigation of the use of force in response whereto by any of the victims whereof(ie constitute "provocation"), or would have been conducted according to a presumption of insulation from the justly deserved consequences (“PIJDC”) of a given such type course of activity, or whether it could justifiably be classified otherwise, the non-provision of such type clarification in a given instance, will be construed to constitute an admission that either the purpose of a given DPATI would have been to instigate the use of force and/or that it would have been perpetrated according to a PIJDC. 84. For among other purposes, to protect whatever component of the federal and state judiciar(y)(ies) actually require(s) him, her or themsel(f)(ves) to read the contents of documents presented to him, her or them other than the caption of a given document ever filed in a given case, from charges that judges do not require themselves to read the document(s) presented to them in (a) given case(s) before issuing rulings in regard whereto, and/or that many judges cannot comprehend the contents of documents which are objectively demonstrably comprehensible; to establish as a condition of employment in a judicial office a requirement that all judicial activity ever conducted be monitored by an audio-recording device, the contents of the recordings created by which over a weekly basis for every week of the year would be transmitted to both two storage facilities in states other than that in which a case would have been adjudicated [an independent bodies], including grand jur(y)(ies) at both the state and federal level at the end of each week of the year and made available to both the general public and any and all incarcerated persons two years prior to the expiration of any statute of limitations, either civil or criminal would expire in which such contents could be used as evidence in any case, civil or criminal in which any judge would be named as a defendant; and in regard whereto, all statutes of limitations (“SOL”) in regard to crimes ever alleged to have been committed by any judge(s) would have to be extended so that no criminal or tort SOL which might ever be invoked regarding any component of judicial activity would ever expire before any victim of any judicial crime and/or tort would have had adequate opportunity to assess the audio-video record of judicial activity of concern to him, her or them. No evidence of any judicial activity conducted without a record of the monitoring whereof, would ever be permitted entry into any defense of any civil or criminal case in which the judicial activity of any judge would be one of the entities in issue in a given case, but on the contrary, a rule of law would be operative, that the non-consideration of a document and/or other type(s) of predatory, tortious and/or criminal, judicial activity must be presumed from the non-presence of any record whereof in the recording(s) of judicial activity for the period in which a given case would have been pending in the court of a given judge, and for purposes of providing adequate safeguard to judges in this type operation, no one could incur any detriment in regard to the issues concerned unless and until either everyone directly concerned in regard to a given matter would have received confirmation of the reception and possession of such records as are referenced herein by the custodians whereof, or it could be demonstrated that conditions would be present providing commensurate protection from unjustified detriment according to the legitimate application of equitable principles whereto. 85. Require judges to wear a wire at all times as a condition of employment, whose contents would be secured, and retained according to the formula referenced in paragraph #84 herein supra. A condition for the participation in the adjudication of any dispute by any judge, prosecutor, government attorney, attorney of any type, member of any security entity and/or clerk is the provision of a signature that he or she realizes that as in the case of any able-bodied male, much less any Baptized Roman Catholic, that such type activity conductor does not possess the authority to incur culpability for the remission, whether such remission would be accompanied by knowledge in re whereof or not, of whatever consideration would ever end up being remitted via the abstention/forbearance from the use of force in the form of Contra-predatory Vigilantism, in regard to the rectification of a given injustice ever perpetrated without the procurement of consideration commensurate therewith in a given instance and in every case. 86. A condition for the participation in the adjudication of any dispute by any judge, prosecutor, government attorney, attorney of any type, party in any case, member of any security entity and/or clerk is the provision upon the reception of a demand wherefore, of a signature that he or she realizes that it is the case that no able-bodied male, much less any Baptized Roman Catholic, would ever possess the authority to remit whatever consideration is remitted via the abstention/forbearance from the use of force in the form of Contra-predatory Vigilantism, in regard to the rectification of a given injustice ever perpetrated without the procurement of consideration commensurate therewith in a given instance and in every case. 87. Correlative to the contents of #86 herein, a condition/prerequisite for the participation in the adjudication of any dispute by any judge, prosecutor, government attorney, attorney of any type, party in any case, member of any security entity and/or clerk is the provision upon the reception of a demand wherefore, of a signature that he or she realizes that the objective in any litigation in which any member of the Institute of St. Michael the Archangel would ever be involved is to retain a claim to resort to use of “disadvantage negators” (aka “equalizers”) in any of the dispute resolution stages, listed as #’s 7-15 &/or beyond, in the RCDRC and that any need and correlative justification for the use of such could invariably be eliminated in a given case in which any allocation of property and/or assets would be all that would be at stake, via either a party’s offering an acceptable offer to settle a case or a judge, or other participant’s’ stipulating to him or her - self cover any amount in dispute via the provision of compensation to ensure that no loss would be incurred by a given member of ISMA ever involved in any given case, in other words that just remuneration for any injury unjustifiably inflicted &/or otherwise caused would be accepted from a collateral source provided any such remission would be free from any coercion, fraud or any other type disqualifying activity. 88. The consequences of the denial of a motion to dismiss is the rendering of a verdict in favor of the non-moving party, which is what the arrangement was in regard to such motions at common law according to Prof Suja Thomas 89. Summary judgment is not permitted in any instance in which both parties to a given dispute would not have agreed to be bound by any judgment ever rendered in regard to such type motion. Revise each of those entries included herein supra in which the addition of the “ upon the reception of a demand wherefore language included in #88 supra would have to be included in order to ensure the legitimacy of a given proposed ground rule. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< 90. Questionnaire Transmitted and Affirmations Under Penalty of Perjury Demanded, so that Moral Liability of Participant in Proceeding Making Demands Wherefore Would not have been Left in Condition of Not Having been Adequately Covered Q.) As a condition of adjudicating any given case, any judge to which a given case would be assigned is required to sign a statement under penalty of perjury that he or she has never taken and/or sworn any kol nidre oath, nor any other oath which would be incompatible with the oath taken to uphold and defend the Constitution of the u.s. of A. or that if such type signature could not be legitimately provided, provide a description of any and all endeavors ever undertaken to purge oneself from the effects of the taking of such type oath so that all concerned in a given situation can ascertain whether there would be a basis upon which any given professedly and evidently actually, repentant former malefactor would not lack the requisite dispositions to adjudicate a given matter (see Assize of Clarendon re precedent for grants of clemency for various sins in certain situations, the conversion and apostolic activity of St. Paul after he had directed St. Stephen’s murder, etc.) 1 O.) Under penalty of perjury I aver that I have never taken and/or sworn any kol nidre oath, nor any other oath which would be incompatible with the oath taken by me to uphold and defend the Constitution of the u.s. of A. or that such type signature cannot be legitimately provided, but I herein provide a description of any and all endeavors ever undertaken to purge myself from the effects of the taking of such type oath ______________________. Under penalty of perjury I aver that I have never heard the expression “Tob Shebbe Goyim Harim” uttered orally, nor seen it expressed in writing by anyone who has ever been in any position of authority over me, whether directly or indirectly _____________________. Or I have in the following instances_________________________, ________________________, __________________. I am familiar with the contents of the Talmud referenced in Michael Hoffman’s website which require a Jewish Judge to render verdict in favor of a Jew in any matter in which a Non-Jew would be pitted in an adversarial posture with a Jew. I am familiar with the contents of the Talmud referenced in Michael Hoffman’s website which make reference to Non-Jews as "Goy" (s) and “Goyim” (pl) which is interpreted by him to mean cattle. Under penalty of perjury I aver that I have never been a member of any secret society, nor any entity committed to the subversion of the Noncounterfiet Version of the Rule of Law and/or of the Constitution of the u.s. of A. I accept in their entirety the postulations contained in Acts 10:34 about God not being a respecter of persons, Acts 5:29, and Matt. 22:21 prohibiting the rendering unto any body politic any consideration owed to God, and the duty incumbent upon all to avoid incurring complicity in anyone else’s sin (1Tim. 5:22), in participating in any “work of darkness” (Eph. 5:8) and/or to permit oneself to be overcome by evil (Rom. 12:21) and that, as St. Thomas Acquinas has explained, any law incompatible with God’s natural law, is not a law but a form of violence (S.T Part... a…Art…), that a “court order or judgment” constitutes a “law” in the sense in which he used such term in such construction and that any such type “law” (ie - one that would in essence constitute a form of violence, necessitates disobedience whereto. Have all “upon the reception of a demand wherefore” entries been augmented to include such language? #10 in D/L of 11/15/12 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. 11512 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. (ismaburd11512) 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. (ismaforbeacpv11512) Forbearance/Contra-predatory Vigilantism Formula There is no promulgated authority, promulgated by the Authentic Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church – history’s only infallible source of authority (Matt. 16:18), in regard to which RJM is cognizant, nor any other promulgation in regard to which RJM is cognizant, to which RJM would be confident that any legitimacy could ever be justifiably attributed and/or upon which RJM would be willing, so long as the gates of hell remain open, to predicate any reliance interest - in which has been contained any expression of approval of any type of unilateral and/or unconditional remission of forbearance /provision of/deprivation of the consideration correlating to the consequences whereof in regard to (a) (any) given predation perpetration(s) ever perpetrated, and/or in the process of ever being perpetrated, from the use of the means Providence has provided for the punishment of predations, the subduing and/or disabling of (a)predation perpetrator(s) and the protection of that component of the Catholic Cause in re which (a) given activity conductor(s) would ever understand in an adequately informed understanding and state of mind/condition of sense of accountability that he would have to provide an accounting. (ismafitnass5-5-11) Master document list – Fitness Assessment - -Negative - demonstrated combination of the non-possession of the capacity to bear and the non-presence of a commitment to bear the burdens of the exercise of the authority of the office described as….at what can be identified to constitute a standard of accountability that could justifiably be classified as not less than acceptable Positive - -demonstrated combination of the non-non-possession of the capacity to bear and the non- non-presence of a commitment to bear, the burdens of the exercise of the authority of the office described as…. a.) at what can be identified to constitute a standard of accountability that could justifiably be classified as not less than minimally acceptable - b.) … at what can be identified to constitute a standard of accountability that would not be so low that Pope St. Pius X would have considered it necessary that the issue of activity conducted at a commensurate standard of accountability by individuals conducting activity in roles similar to the role in which a given component of activity would ever have been conducted, 100 years ago, be addressed during his 11 year pontificate – (1903-1914) in any promulgation to the universal Roman Catholic Church. - C.) At what can be identified to constitute a SOA that would not be lower than what it can be ascertained from Inferences permitted from activity conducted by Pope Pius X which was never promulgated to the Universal Church that he would have considered to constitute too low a SOA for such to be considered acceptable A component of the solution for the time being: Declare the contents of all criminal codes unconstitutional as applied to any activity of RJM conducted relative to the just resolution of the dispute this document concerns. Apologies are herein expressed that this document might not be clearer and more thorough than the condition in which it is presently found to be, and that if something clearer and more thorough would not have been available, that it or something similar would not have gotten into the hands of the countless victims of the Court Systems presently operative in Northern IL, who have capitulated to any given predation perpetration(s) ever perpetrated upon them on the one hand and to the Salvador Tapia, Joe Jackson and any Bart Ross “Persona” (since the author of this document is not cognizant that any investigation has been completed demonstrating that the official Bart Ross story is worthy of any presumption of legitimacy) types prior to their deciding not to adopt a morally legitimate approach to their problems in a given instance. Non-sham investigation, prosecution and punishment of crime arrangement (“IPPA”) distinguished from Sham IPPCA Non-sham investigation, prosecution and punishment arrangement - defined: Alleged perpetrator of predation perpetration would have to be subjected to examination under penalty of perjury at least once in investigatory phase of administration of just retribution administration process in a given case and likewise in any prosecution phase whereof, in an arrangement in which provision for the administration of just retribution and punishment for activity demonstrated to have been predatory in character in a given instance would not be controlled by individuals whose activity and decision making in regard whereto would be subject to the same economic, political and/or social incentives and disincentives as that activity in regard to which the punishment referenced herein supra would constitute the just consequences, as distinct from an arrangement in which the administration of such punishment as would be justified and necessary to protect the true common good according to the principle present in the axiom “Qui nocentibus parcit, innocentibus punit” would be in the control of those injured directly and indirectly from any given component of predatory activity in regard to which punishment would have to be administered in order to protect such true common good. Sham IPPA – Anyone can observe any non-atypical IPPA in any court system operative in the u.s. of A. in this period of its continued descent into an ever deepening barbarity and formulate his or her own formula in this regard. Updates, modifications and improvements to this document are in the process of being completed and posted. This document is subject to demands for the production whereof and the disposal, destruction and/or altering whereof would leave any perpetrator of such subject to penalties applicable under a given configurement of law(s) and/or legal promulgations of various sorts.,. Confirmation of Reception of Service/Delivery Whereof - .On __________________________, at ______________, I (title)___________________ received a copy of the document in which this Con…/del is included via hand delivery at _____________________________________, from a person demonstrating identification as _______________________________. or Designee refused to sign and document was left with him or her as indicated herein, but not in such manner that I could be subject to any legal sanction for having so left it ___________________________ #11 in D/L of 11/15/12….) Motion And Proposed Order For Declaration Of Unconstitutionality As Applied Of Provisions Of Criminal Codes - Template Plaintiff’s Motion and Proposed Order of … Now comes the Plaintiff (“RJM”) to respectfully move this Court to provide signatures in the spaces adjacent to the entries included herein infra or explanations justifying not doing so in any case in which this Court would not provide a signature adjacent to a given entry, in order to ensure that the Court’s moral liability regarding its activity therein would not remain not adequately covered and that if it would, that such lamentable conjectural condition could in no way be imputed to any culpable negligence attributable to RJM and in explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows: ⦁ At this juncture, howsoever the issues RJM presented in _____________________________________________________________________________to this Court would end up being adjudicated, RJM considers it necessary to move this Hon. Court to either sign a copy of the postulation included herein infra or to have it recommend that such postulation or something similar be signed by a judge conducting activity in a court possessing authority over this Court, which postulation in its present form is constituted as follows: Declaration of Unconstitutionality of… Criminal Code(s) Regarding Activity of …Robert J. More 1. (It is herein proposed that any clause contained herein which would cause any Court to refuse to sign this document be stricken over the explicitly confirmed and acknowledged objection of the proponent thereof, so that no clause, the inclusion of which would render it impossible for such proponent to presently procure a signature upon this document, would be left herein such that the signature herein sought would remain unprocured, without in the endeavor - to procure a signature on a document which might facilitate the procurement of some form of relief and/or the elimination of some burden - there being present the making of any unjustified concessions to the activity of the devil, and such that it could never be claimed that the proposition was unjustifiably conciliatory and/or characterized by concessions which the proponent thereof would possess no authority to make, acknowledging that in exigent circumstances wherein a signature upon some modified version of any original proposal could facilitate the procurement of a benefit or the elimination of an evil, the effect of which would evidently be more beneficial to the interests of the Catholic Church than would be whatever condition would be left in place as a consequence of whatever injury or loss might accrue to such Church from the non-inclusion of any clause in whatever declaration would have been issued which would not include the entirety of whatever would have been included in the proposal originally offered, it is the proponent of this postulation’s understanding that the procurement of a document in some measure modified would not be unjustified, but that great solicitude must necessarily be exercised in this regard, lest non-negotiables end up being unjustifiably conceded and/or otherwise compromised. (SEVERABILITY CLAUSE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION)) By the authority vested in this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the united States of America {or by any other authority and/or any authority howsoever described (include any other formulation here:_____________________)} as the derivation of such authority has been transmitted down through the centuries of the history of Western Civilization, through the succession of generations reaching back prior to the signing of the Magna Charta on June 15, 1215 A.D. to the signing of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 A.D., and in consideration of the consideration and protections to which the people of the united States of America (“u.S.A”, “u.S. of A.”))(or any other formulation describing the citizens of the 50 states that presently constitute the Union and/or Republic of the u.S. of A. howsoever described and/or appelled) are entitled, correlative to the moral liability to which such persons are subject under the immutable requirements of the natural law as such as been inscribed upon the heart of every man (Romans 1:15 et al) and that any arrangement at any juncture in place imputable to whatever combination of contributing causes which would effectively constitute a deprivation of the measures of consideration guaranteed to all citizens of such Union and/or Republic by amongst other provisions of such Constitution, those of the Prohibition on the Establishment of a Religion, Prohibition on the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion, Right to Petition, Due Process, Supremacy and/or Guaranty Clauses of such Constitution and/or the prohibition on slavery explicitly promulgated in the Thirteenth Amendment to such Constitution, the prohibition on the denial of the equal protection of the laws and the implicit prohibition present in the Fourteenth Amendment to such Constitution upon arrogations, encroachments, usurpations, infringements, transgressions and/or predations which would ever constitute any type of deprivation of any of the liberties English speaking persons have been accorded through the centuries at least on paper as constituent components of “ordered liberty” by their government(s) as such are actionable under what is classified as substantive due process in the jurisprudence of the SCOTUS, this Court herein declares that all state, county and municipal laws are unconstitutional as such might be applied and/or as any member of any government entity might ever endeavor to apply such in the absence of the issuance of this order to any measure which Robert J. More might implement and/or to any endeavor in which RJM might ever participate which would have been implemented and/or undertaken, whether in a given case, the intents and purposes of a given agenda and/or project concerning such matters, would have been published, promulgated and/or declared explicitly or not, for purposes of the rectification via vigilante and/or military measures of any injustice(s) which it is RJM’s informed understanding presently prevails in the matters which the case this document concerns in _________________________________________ concerns and that further no member of any policing entity may endeavor to take Robert J. More (“RJM”) into custody pursuant to any allegation of contempt of any type without RJM’s first being provided a hearing in regard to any such type charge via the filing and adjudication of a 28 USC 2241 petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to be presented in the first instance to either U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (“7th C.C.A”) Judge(s) Daniel Manion, Diane Sykes or Kenneth Ripple should any such type charge have been postulated in any proceeding ever conducted in the States of IL, WI or IN and before either Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) Chief Justice J. Roberts or SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito, should any such type charge have been postulated in any proceeding conducted in any state other than IL, WI or IN, with provision for the adjudication of any such type charge that might ever be postulated in IL, WI or IN, before one of the two SCOTUS Justices listed herein supra, should none of the 7th C.C.A. Judges listed supra be available in a given case to adjudicate any habeas corpus petition which might ever be submitted to any of them and/or the clerk of the 7th C.C.A. _________________________, _____________ Signature Date OR: This Court, ever mindful, that the authority which it exercises in this case, has ultimately emanated from the consequences of a commitment to use force by the English Peasants at Runneyemede in 1215, were King John III not to grant them the concessions which they then and there demanded as being the minimal consideration which they could accept, without in accepting anything, less incurring a most egregiously sinful complicity in deprivations and predations, the likes of which no human being, created in God’s image and likeness, who would hope to retain a claim to procure the reward promised to those who refuse to make any unjustified concessions to evil & to avoid the punishment guaranteed to those who do not require themselves to refuse to make any such type of unjustified concessions, and who otherwise satisfy the requirements of the moral law in the conduct of their mortal lives at least to the extent necessary to ensure that their moral liability would not have been left not adequately covered in any substantial area in regard to which their activity in the earthly theatre would ultimately be assessed (Matt. 25:26 et al), could justifiably accept from any sovereign, and the actual use of force by those British American Colonists who in 1775, refused to make the same type of unjustified concessions to the predations and deprivations which the then reigning British Sovereign was at that time perpetrating upon them; acknowledges that no morally legitimate formula concerning the relations of people and their government(s), could ever be proposed which would not include provision for vigilantism and/or domestic insurrection in situations in which means less likely to result in the types of serious consequences which has always caused the Catholic Church to insist that remedies for the rectification of injustices and the resolution of disputes alternative to those involving the use of force, always be exhausted prior to anyone’s resorting to force for the accomplishment of such objectives, howsoever legitimate and necessary the use of force for such purposes might be in a given instance, be, but for the following reasons, asserts that the conditions which would have to be present in order for force to be justifiably utilized in these matters described supra are not present at this time either because conditions independent of RJM’s control render the use of force unnecessary and hence unjustified which are identified as follows __________________________________-, __________________________________, ____________________ (use additional paper as needed) or because RJM has not proven to this Court’s satisfaction that he possesses the requisite combination of adequately adjusted priorities and moral fiber for this Court to now provide him the type of “Declaration of Unconstitutionality as Applied…RJM….” which this Court would understand and consider that RJM would have had to have demonstrated in order for it to provide RJM such type order _________________________________, and that further, correlative to this assertion that RJM simply has not yet demonstrated the possession of such type priorities and moral fiber to this Court’s satisfaction, this Court herein informs RJM that if RJM would complain that it would be RJM’s position that such position of the Court could not on the whole be justified, that RJM would be welcome to explain to this Court the basis upon which RJM would posit such claim, so that upon the consideration of any such postulations as RJM might present in this regard, this Court could without further delay and the imposition of any further burden upon RJM in this regard, issue the type of order RJM has sought herein, or that RJM would have to satisfy the following exact requirements and/or make the following exact modifications in his priorities and/or modus operandi in order to procure the type of order which he has herein sought ___________________________, ___________________________, _____________________-(use additional paper as necessary). 2. This Court is reluctant to provide any affirmative endorsement of the nature proposed herein, but at this juncture would at least provide a nihil obstat – indicating that it could not see any reason why some Court of higher authority than this ought have any reluctance to provide a signature on the document or something similar in regard to the activity of Robert J. More in general (subject to the following restrictions, limitations and prohibitions) _________________, ______________, _____________. Last revised 9/15/08, next scheduled revision 8/15/10, any input for the next revision would be much appreciated Robert J. More P.O. Box 6926, Chicago, IL 60680, 863 – 688-9880 #16 in D/L of 11/15/12 Structural Defect Document of 11/15/12 add - invitation to explicitly admit that would not have mattered what ...(past case) would not now matter what...would affirmative acts would have been executed, would be executed...the result would have been, will be .... the party evidently most capable of causing what is apprehended to constittute detriment to.. providing benefit to.. would have prevailed in at least any and all trial courts and appellate courts... discretionary review courts - either admit the legitimacy of such proposition, produce an argument that such is not the case has not been the case, would not be the case, ...some other alternative, confirm that has been apprised that ... finds it necessary to proceed upon the presumption that.... Confirmation re CPVR Retention Agenda of RJM in re Prosecution of ........ Confirmation 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: 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. # 12 from D/L of 11/15/12 “Duties of Certain Classes of Laypersons “– from Moral Theology in Four Volumes by Henry Davis, S.J. (1958 edition) as PDF