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
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.
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).
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 "mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" email@example.com_
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
prohibit 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.
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?