Robert J. More
2008 S. Blue Island
Chicago, IL 60608
Complaints presented numerous times.
This is first agency contacted. FBI will be contacted as well.
Court cases pending in this matter are Cook County Circuit Court Criminal # 011188289 & as below:
Besides the averments contained in the body of case # 02 C 6736 included infra, RJM avers that Asst. Cook County State’s Attorneys Virginia Kinzie and a Jean Marie _________? Have conspired to kidnap RJM and have provided notice of an intent to do so, as well as an intent to violate Title 18 U.S.C. Part 1, Ch. 3, 241, 242, 1503, 1621, 1622, 1951, 1961 et Seq and 2381 as well as to violate Illinois State Statutes re Misuse of Office and Misappropriation of Funds and on other grounds.
Richard Devine is responsible for the crimes that have been committed in this case as well as are other actors whose names are as of yet unknown. RJM needs the U.S. Attorney to immediately obtain a temporary restraining order which will prevent the CCSA Office or any agency acting on their behalf or at their behest from seizing RJM’s person or otherwise unjustifiably interfering with his liberty. RJM also demands that a U.S. Attorney or FBI Agent monitor the activity of the CCSA Office in regard to RJM, before any more felonies are committed by that office against RJM and the public and that(sic) before RJM has irreparable harm done to him by actors representing that office, or by any other party involved in the affairs involving RJM and the CCSA Office.
Robert J. More
Robert J More
V Case No. 02 C 6736
City of Chicago,
Chicago Police Department, Terrence Hilliard Superintendent of Police for City of Chicago, Chicago Police Officers (“CPO”’s) Marto,
Hammond, Detective J. Adams, Detective Glenn US Congressional Switchboard
Toll-free Numbers. 1-800-648-3516 1-877-762-8762
Sgt. Keane, Sgt. DeYoung, Lieutenant Dahlburg, Lt. J. Doe, Watch Commander J. Doe, Asst. Supts J. Doe, & J. Doe, CPO’s J. Doe, & J.Doe, CPO John Gholar, CPO Huerta, CPO Male, Municipality of Cook County, Cook County State’s Attorney R. Devine, Asst. Cook County State’s Attorney (“ACCSA”s ) Jennifer Sheck, J. Doe, K Swanson, B. King, Mr. Gebhart, other J. & J. Does, Cook County Circuit Court Judge (“CCCCJ”)W. Williams, CCCCJ Edward Antonietti, Cook County Clerk (“CCC”)Dorothy Brown, Assistant CCC’s J. Doe & J. Doe, Illinois Appellate Court Judge (“IACJ”)Shelvin Louise Marie Hall, IACJ J. Doe, IACJ J. Doe, Cook County Sheriff’s Office, Cook County Sheriff (“CCS”) M. Sheahan, CCS Deputy McReynolds, Illinois State Senator J. Cullerton, Attorney (“Att”). F. Babbitt, Att. R. Bruen, All Partners of Fagel & Haber Law Firm, Cook County Psychiatrist, Dr. R. Salzburg, with all Defendants Sued Both in their Official & Individual Personal Capacities & the Municipal & Other Governmental Entities Sued as Government Entities
Robert More (“RJM”) herein asserts the following claims against various defendants in the above-entitled action:
-for civil damages:
(1) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: initial unjustified, constitutionally impermissible & criminal (federal felonies in contravention of 18 USC 241, 1503, 1951, 1961 et seq. 2381), interference (“UCI&CI”)with RJM’s claims to participate in the ordinary activities of life without incurring unjustified interference from any entity, either public or private by representatives of the Chicago Police Department (Hammond, Marto, Keane, DeYoung, Dvorsky, Adams et al) in form of warrantless & illegal search of RJM’s living quarters in December of 2000.
(2) – in form of illegal seizure of RJM’s person,
(3) –in form of false imprisonment for 27 hours at Chicago Police Department without there ever having existed any probable cause that a crime had been committed by RJM
(4) –in form of battery via use of handcuffs
(5) –in form of utilization of excessive force to effect imprisonment & arrest via use of handcuffs
(6) – in form of non-provision/deliberate, repeated, reinforced, & pertinacious denial of - opportunity for RJM to produce evidence demonstrating his complete innocence in regard to the crime he was charged with in the initial detainment in direct & contumacious disregard of the standard articulated in Illinois v Gates 460 U.S. 213
(7) – in form of denial of access to the restroom in the police station
(8) –in form of subjection to humiliation & interference with mental tranquility by not one, but two CPO’s
(9) – in form of denial while in lock-up of anything to eat except one bagel with cheese for a period of 24 hours
(10) common law tort of constructive defamation against CPO’s Hammond, Marto, et al
(11) common law tort of malicious prosecution against F. Babbitt, R. Bruen, J. Cullerton, All Partners at Fagel & Haber Law Firm & the Law Firm itself
(12) violation of 42 USC 1983 deprivation of liberty & property rights under color of law against Cook County, the CCSA, R. Devine, ACCSA, Jennifer Sheck, J. Doe, both in their ministerial & administrative capacities
(13) violation of 42 USC 1983 deprivation of liberty & property rights under color of law against Cook County Circuit Court Judge W. Williams, in preventing RJM from speaking in Court, using deputy sheriffs in an attempt to intimidate RJM, in not addressing issues appropriately raised by RJM, in preventing RJM from superimposing the structure on the proceedings conducted in the Court in order to accomplish the identifiable ends of justice, & in sending RJM to a BCX exam without there having been any justification for the implementation of such measure
(14) violation of 42 USC 1983 by Dr. Salzburg in conducting BCX
(15) violation of 42 USC 1983 deprivation of liberty & property rights under color of law against Cook County Municipality, CC Sheriff M. Sheahan & CCS Deputy McREynolds in forcing RJM to depart from a public courthouse at 14:00 on a Friday Afternoon in the First Quarter of 2001.
(16) violation of 42 USC 1985(3): conspiracy on the basis of invidious discrimination against a member of a class, RJM being the sole Cook County resident in regard to whose existence Resident RJM is cognizant who accepts all that the Non-counterfeit Catholic Church teaches & refuses to conduct activity according to the prevailing pagan standard in this God-forsaken society, which is to appease & accommodate those presumed to be able by their conduct to benefit or harm one’s interests; instead, conducting his activity always on the protective side of the protective/predatory fault line
(17) violation of 42 USC by CCCC Clerk J. Doe who falsified court records
violations of 42 USC 1985(2) – unjustified interference with court proceedings & processes &/or interference with right of access to court systems (ie. conspiracy for purpose of impeding , hindering , obstructing… the due course of justice in any State …with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, (Bell v Milwaukee 498 F.Supp.1339, Crawford 386 F.Supp. 187).
(18) RICO predicate act violations of obstruction of justice, interference with interstate commerce on grounds enmerated in pars included supra.
(19) violation of 42 USC 1983 deprivation of liberty & property rights under color of law against Asst. CCSA Karin Swanson for disobeying a court order in regard to the submission of documents to RJM
(20) violation of 42 USC 1983 by Swanson & associate B. King in neglecting to conduct adequate inquiry into the issue of probable cause in this case
(21) violation of 42 USC 1983 by CCCC Judge E. Antonietti in utilizing an entirely subjective standard in regard to intelligibility of documents submitted by RJM, in refusing to consider documents submitted by RJM & in refusing to hold Swanson in contempt of court or have her arrested for the felonies she committed against RJM & the public
(22) on information & belief, violation of 42 USC 1983 by CPO John Gholar & CPD for nonproduction of documents in response to a subpeona appropriately issued
(23) violation of 42 USC 1983 by Appellate Judge Shelvin … Hall & her associates in denying RJM copies of court transcripts & also denying the declaring of his version of the facts that would be established therefrom for purposes of the appeal [to be the official version] & then dismissing the appeal
(24) violation of 42 USC 1985(2) on grounds enumerated in pars. #’s 20 – 23
(25) RICO predicate act violations of obstruction of justice, interference with interstate commerce on grounds enumerated in pars. # 20 – 23 supra.
(26) violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983: refusing or neglecting a.) to prevent the initial constitutionally impermissible & felonious deprivation of RJM’s rights & b.) to later respond so as ameliorate the damage consequently caused by the deprivation
(27) common law tort of malicious abuse of process,
(28) common law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress imputable to all actors enumerated,
-for injunctive relief - prevention of retainment in government employment of any of the parties eventually found to have incurred liability in any of the causes enumerated supra,
(29) declaration of unconstitutionality of any weapons concealment banning laws as applied to RJM
(30) declaration of unconstitutionality of any laws imposing criminal liability on grounds of resisting arrest or fleeing & eluding arrest as applied to RJM
(31) declaration of unconstitutionality of any hiring increases & or compensation increases for any of the entities included supra, unless & until substantial efforts to restore order to the conducting of the activities of such entities is accomplished
(32) injunctions from a.) punishment to RJM for ever defending himself in an incarceration setting from any attack that might ever, whether orchestrated or otherwise, be perpetrated upon him, b.) from being prevented from wearing some type of groin protection device in such type setting c.) from having to sleep in the presence of more than one other person total in a given enclosement, & d.) from exposure to smoke.
1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under ; 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1367(a); 42 U.S.C 1983, 1985 & 1988; and 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968.
2. Jurisdiction of this court for the pendent claims is authorized by F.R.Civ.P. 18(a), and arises under the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction as set forth in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966).
1. Defendants City of Chicago, Chicago Police Department, Terrence Hilliard Superintendent of Police for City of Chicago, are all law enforcement entities abiding in Chicago IL
2. Defendants Chicago Police Officers (“CPO”’s) Marto, Hammond, Detective J. Adams, , Sgt. Keane, Sgt. DeYoung, Lieutenant Dahlburg, Lt. J. Doe, Watch Commander J. Doe, Asst. Supts J. Doe, & J. Doe, CPO’s J. Doe, & J.Doe, Detective Glenn Dvorsky are all either stationed at the Harrison & Kedzie Police Department Facility or in some other facility in the geographical vicinity thereof
3. Defendant CPO John Gholar is stationed in the CPD Legal Affairs Department
4. Defendants Municipality of Cook County, Cook County State’s Attorney R. Devine, Asst. Cook County State’s Attorney (“ACCSA”s ) Jennifer Sheck, J. Doe, K Swanson, B. King, Mr. Gebhart, other J. & J. Does are all stationed at either the Daley Center at 50 W. Washington St. iin Chicago IL or at an outlying branch court
5. Defendants Cook County Circuit Court Judge (“CCCCJ”)W. Williams, CCCCJ Edward Antonietti were stationed at Branch Courts 43 & 47 respectively at the time these causes of action accrued
6. Defendants ook County Clerk (“CCC”)Dorothy Brown, Assistant CCC’s J. Doe & J. Doe, were stationed at the Daley Center & Branch Courts 43 & 47 respectively at the time these causes of action accrued.
7. Defendants llinois Appellate Court Judge (“IACJ”)Shelvin Louise Marie Hall, IACJ J. Doe, IACJ J. Doe, were Illinois Appellate Court Judges at the time the incidents enumerated occurred.
8. Defendants Cook County Sheriff’s Office, Cook County Sheriff (“CCS”) M. Sheahan were stationed in the Daley Center, & CCS Deputy McReynolds was stationed at Branch Court 43, both in Chicago IL .
9. Illinois State Senator J. Cullerton, was a member of the Illinois State Senate at the time these causes of action accrued & a member with Attorney (“Att”). F. Babbitt, Att. R. Bruen, All Partners of Fagel & Haber Law Firm, of Fagel & Haber Law Firm in Chicago, IL which was located at 140 S. Dearborn St, Chicago IL in December of 2000, & is now located at 55 E. Monroe St. Chicago IL 60603
10. Cook County Psychiatrist, Dr. R. Salzburg was stationed at a psychiatrict facility of Cook County, at 26th & California Sts. in Chicago IL when she administered a BCX to RJM in April of 2001.
11. The Plaintiff sues all public employees in their official and individual capacities.
1. Sometime during the week ending 12/30/2000, representatives of the CPD searched the living quarters of RJM without a warrant.
2. Sometime during the week ending 12/30/2000, CPD Detective Glenn Dvorsky arrogated to himself the authority to claim that RJM had left “death threats” with Attorney R. Bruen in a voice mail message, although no such type message had ever been left with anyone by RJM.
3. On 12/29/2000 at or about 12:30 a.m. RJM was awakened by a knock on the door of Room 39, at the building in which he resided at the time, at 2008 S. Blue Island St., Chicago, IL & notified that representatives of the Chicago Police Department were demanding that he open the door to the room.
4. Cognizant of his innocence of any crime or criminal activity, RJM opened the door out of a general sense of obligation to accommodate persons & parties, when such objective can be accomplished without thereby incurring complicity in the sin of another, & especially out of a sense of duty to those acting under at least the color of legitimate authority.
5. RJM was notified that the CPO’s were there to take him into custody for questioning regarding telephone calls RJM had allegedly made.
6. RJM provided notice to them that he would bring some books & documents with him to establish his innocence in this regard.
7. CPO #1 notified him that he would not need such materials where he was going.
8. RJM then notified the CPO’s that RJM really needed to bring the materials in order to protect himself.
9. CPO #1 notified RJM that there would not be room in the car for the book bag & books RJM provided notice he considered that he needed to bring to the interrogation center.
10. RJM obtained at least a constructive confirmation that the [CPO knew RJM was claiming the] bringing of the books to any interrogation was really a necessity.
11. RJM accompanied the CPO’s down to the lobby of the building, where CPO #1 applied handcuffs to RJM.
12. When RJM arrived at the station, he was led to an interrogation room wherein he was kept until about 15:00 on the 29th.
13. He was interrogated by several different CPO’s, including CPO’s #1& 2, Sgt Keane, & others.
14. RJM repeatedly explained to each that there was no evidence upon which probable cause could be established that RJM had [not] committed any crime & that RJM would return to his residence to obtain the materials needed to prove his claims.
15. RJM was notified that the implementation of such measure would not be permitted.
16. At one juncture, while locked in the interrogation room, RJM knocked on the door thereof, requesting a piece of paper & writing utensil, which he was denied.
17. At one juncture, while locked in the interrogation room, RJM knocked on the door thereof[,] requesting to use the washroom.
18. When no one answered the knocks, RJM began to knock more loudly & provide information conveyances through the door.
19. Finally, after what seemed like a long long period, a voice outside the door exclaimed “piss in your pants.”
20. RJM was in considerable distress by this time & thereafter continued to knock on the door, & provide notice as to what he intended to do if the door was not opened, as urinating in the room would not have been an acceptable alternative.
21. Repeatedly, RJM offered to converse with a State’s Attorney to explain the telephone harassment statute & the cases decided in regard to it & at one juncture a CPO notified RJM that: The State’s Attorney, doesn’t care what the law is, they do what they want.”
22. Greater detail surrounding the events that took place between 12:00 midnite & 15:00 on 12/29/00 will be provided later.
23. At 15:00 RJM was taken downstairs to the intake area to be arrested over his vociferous protests.
24. The intake CPO mocked RJM’s endeavor to protect RJM’s valuables, asking RJM why RJM did not trust “his fellow criminals.”
25. This same intake CPO also denied RJM anything to eat & put RJM in solitary confinement., where RJM remained without any food until after 24 hours had elapsed since his initial detention.
26. From solitary confinement, RJM continued to protest vehemently to the Luciferian Reign of Terror type tactics to which he had been subjected.
27. At the initial hearing held in the case, Asst. CCSA J. Sheck tried to deny RJM his right to leave the state, even for employment purposes.
28. At successive appearances in Branch 43, Judge Williams prevented RJM from speaking by only permitting the Public Defender to speak for him, which availed RJM nothing & cost him considerably.
29. Asst. State’s Attorneys breached enumerable duties, construing anything RJM did or left undone as evidence of whatever claim it was they were making to railroad RJM, get him sent to a BCX exam, & keep him silenced.
30. At one juncture, acting in her administrative capacity, she resorted to extortion & intimidation, threatening to have RJM’s bond revoked if RJM did not refrain from implementing the measures to serve a document upon her.
31. Judge Williams acquiesed in this campaign, keeping at least two or more deputies within two feet of RJM every time RJM appeared.
32. At one appearance, RJM was the only defendant appearing on the call & over ten court employees lined the courtroom walls to observe the proceedings.
33. Williams, at all times, prevented RJM from speaking, effectively ensuring that RJM could not get a ruling on a request for a speedy trial or even a confirmation that the Court would acknowledge he had made one, & sent him to a BCX without the grounds necessary to do so, having been present.
34. Williams or some other clerk falsified court documents imputing continuances to RJM when RJM did not request them
35. Dr. Salzburg conducted the BCX, preventing RJM from taking any notes or asking any questions of her.
36. Many of the BCX questions were unjustifiably intrusive, beyond the intrusiveness of the procedure in the first place.
37. The case was transferred to Branch 47, where abuses continued.
38. On May 7, 2001, Asst. CCSA K Swanson was ordered to provide RJM documents pertinent to the case, which she did not do on the 7th nor on the 14th, nor before the 21rst of May, threatening RJM with arrest if he would not leave the CCSA Office.
39. Neither Asst. CCSA Swanson or King, nor any other CCSA, ever conducted an investigation reasonable under the circumstances as to the issue of whether probable cause to arrest had ever existed in this case.
40. Judge E. Antonietti presided over the proceedings conducted in Branch 47 according to the same Luciferian Reign of Terror, words mean whatever he claims they mean, intelligibility is subjectively defined by whether he can understand a claim made, Rex Lex, carnal appetite based fiat - standard, repeatedly denying forms of relief sought, just as every other Judge ruling in the case had, without providing any explanation for such denials, howsoever badly injured by such presumptively malicious & felonious methods & practices, RJM on any occasion, was.
41. All in all, RJM counts some 27 appearances that he had to make in this case, which Antonietti tried to push to trial over RJM’s vociferous protestations , right up to the minute before jury selection was to begin, at which time he continued the case.
42. To the extent of RJM’s knowledge in the matter, the CPD did not respond to the subpeona he issued upon it, presumably committing federal felonies & torts in the process.
43. When the case was appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, on the grounds of the denial of RJM’s statutory & constitutional rights to a speedy trial, Judge S. Hall repeatedly obstructed justice, interfered with interstate commerce & denied RJM
due process of & the equal protection of - the laws, besides his right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, conducting her activity on the “having it both ways” double standard, one way street, sacred cow – absolute discretion that so many tens of millions of Americans have by now come to expect from judges, government officials & corporate officers as the customary modus operandi of this evidently all but hopelessly unsalveagably corrupted country.
44. When the proposal was repeatedly put before her to grant the indigent Defendant’s request for the transcripts he needed to prove the speedy trial violation which was the subject of the appeal, or in the alternative, to judicially declare that RJM’s version of the events constituting the adjudication in the trial court would serve as the official version of such events for purposes of the appeal, which would render such transripts unecessary, or to provide a linguistically legitimate, rationally grounded, logically tenable, evidentiarily sustainable, constitutionally permissible, not requirement of the natural law – incompatible, explanation as to how she could possibly deny both forms of relief without providing some alternative whereby RJM could prosecute the appeal, she opted for the alternative for which so many of her felony-committing confreres opt – she simply did not address the issue, instead issuing a presumptively malicious & felonious denial of RJM’s motion(s) with no explanation for such denial – even though RJM had provided an order(s) in which the alternatives that were morally acceptable could be identified.
45. Defendants State Senator J. Cullerton, Attorney (“Att”). F. Babbitt, Att. R. Bruen, & All Partners of Fagel & Haber Law Firm have all incurred liability for the false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution & outrage claims herein stated, the exact factual information in regard to which will be provided when RJM obtains such through discovery, as he cannot now commit to positions more thoroughly explicated without access to pertinent documents & the opportunity to interrogate the participants involved in the torts committed.
46. Defendants State Senator J. Cullerton, Attorney (“Att”). F. Babbitt, Att. R. Bruen, & All Partners of Fagel & Haber Law Firm have all incurred liability for violations of 42 USC 1985 (3) & 1985(2) & RICO, the facts in support of which claims cannot herein be included as they are the subject of a separate law suit & thus cannot be litigated in two separate cases, but which will be added as the operative rules & the requirements of justice are applied to the adjudication of this case.
47. Defendants by themselves & in cooperation with one another have obviously maliciously used a legal process to accomplish some ulterior purpose for which it was not designed or intended, or which was not the legitimate purpose of the particular process employed – in this case the purpose of seizing Robert More & preventing him from exposing the type of abuses, malefactions, & felonies which are so obviously the customary operating procedure of the members of Fagel & Haber Law Firm.
48. On June 21, 2002, CPO Huerta refused to make a police report in response to RJM’s request that one be made regarding the violation of 720 ILCS 135/1-2 (4) committed by Defendant Babbitt on 12/27/00, thereby depriving RJM of the equal protection of the laws..
49. An Officer Orozco later took the report, but Asst. CCSA Gebhart prevented RJM from swearing a complaint out against Babbitt thereby depriving RJM of the equal protection of the laws, which occurred in the week ending 6/29/02.
50. Defendant CPO Male refused to permit a subordinate to complete a police report for RJM in regard to the crime committed by Bruen & Babbitt in terms of their false reporting of a crime against RJM which occurred in the week ending 6/29/02, thereby depriving RJM of the equal protection of the laws.
51. Each of the Defendants named in the complaint (a) had an object to be accomplished; (b) had an agreement on the object or course of action to be accomplished that had been made with at least one other person; (c) performed one or more unlawful overt acts; and (d) caused RJM damages that were a direct result of those acts.
52. In as much in regard to the RICO claims pled [that]: Offices of public officials can be RICO enterprises, United States v McDade, 827 F.Supp. 1153, 1181
(Clerk of Courts), that employees can conspire with own corporation United States v. Hartley, 678 F.2d 961, that [a] government entity make(sic) [may] constitute [an] “enterprise” within meaning of R.I.C.O. United States v. Freeman, 6 F.3d 586, that an enterprise may include courts. United States v Angelilli, 660 F.2d 23; U.S.v Bacheler, 611 F.2d 443, & that a city can be an enterprise. United States v Logue, 751 F.Supp. 748, 755 (N.D. of Ill): & that there are more than the two or more related acts necessary to state a claim on the RICO count, the RICO count must necessarily be recognized by this Court.
Each of the claims contained in this complaint will be explicated to a much greater measure at a later date.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all the Government Agent Defendants jointly and severally, for actual, general, special, compensatory damages in the amount of $140,000 and further demands judgment against each of said Defendants, jointly and severally, for punitive damages in the amount of $100,000, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable, on the 42 USC 1983 Counts, for the same damages on the 42 USC 1985 (2) count, & the same damages on the 42 USC 1985 (3) count, & for appropriate compensatory damages equaling the same amount on the RICO count[,] plus treble damages: & from the Corporate Attorney Defendants, RJM demands judgment on compensatory damages of $140,000.00 from each, plus punitive damages in the aggregate of one million dollars, plus the costs of this action, including attorney's fees, and such other relief deemed to be just and equitable, plus appropriate compensatory damages equaling the same amount on the RICO count[,] plus treble damages on the RICO count.
Furthermore, RJM moves this Court to issue injunctions preventing any law enforcement officer or anyone else from charging or otherwise punishing RJM with any charge of resisting arrest, fleeing & eluding arrest, for carrying a concealed weapon, or for defending himself in an incarceration setting from any attack that might ever, whether orchestrated or otherwise, be perpetrated upon him, & from being prevented from wearing some type of groin protection device in such type setting & from having to ever sleep in the presence of more than one other person or to be exposed to second hand smoke.
Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial in this case.
The undersigned states that I am the Plaintiff herein, and have read the foregoing pleading filed [by me] on my behalf , and the facts stated therein are true.
19 September 2002 _____________________________
Robert J. More
2008 S.Blue Island, Chicago, IL 60608, 312 455-8385 (add all tickets & tows)