first superseding component of 5/16/14 of ....

r roots articles on FGJ

demand for opportunity to conduct deposition of Whomever made determination not to present evidence to FGJ and anyone and everyone else involved in such determination and/or the decision to instruct Dep USMS McKesson to inform RJM that the evidence RJM had presented would not be presented to any FGJ and that criminal charges would not otherwise be instituted beyond a level of remote and nonnecessary cooperation via personal electronic recording device

Scalia - lead another revolution

protection of what can be demonstrated to constitute to a measure of moral certainty "legitimate reliance interest(s)" from Demonically instigated activity and/or any type of activity fitting into the category referenced in Summa Theologica ... re devil ... has not been provided in regard to

claim of those Jews whose activity has not risen to the level beyond remote, non-necessary cooperation ..

invitation to ... to demonstrate that ... activity was conducted at a high enough level of accountability that the non-institution of criminal charges in re ... could be justified

temporary resource possession, influence, including most prominently capacity to have force utilized for the advancement of any given agenda IAGI against anyone who would ever end up in the posture of being considered an adversary,

has enough consideration been provided in re... to spare ...grief and sheild from harm that...

notice to representatives of govt entities - re protection program

242 remedy,

appointment of a special prosecutor who would not permit himself to be seduced, deceived, cajoled, intimidated, nor fatigued out of the adequate bearing of the burden of such office

Download the original attachment


8/7/09, b.35, c., m. n.10 p.2

United States District Court

for the

Northern District of Illinois

Harry Brooks


V Case # 09-cv-4682

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois


Robert J. More – Amicus Curiae

Emergency Motion, Yet to be Proofread, of 8/14/09 for Court to Immediately Grant Some Form of Relief the Provision of Which Will Ensure that No Interference Will Be Posited to the Presentation of the Evidence Contained in the Accompanying “First Superceding Component of Evidence to Be Presented to Grand Jury of 8/17/09 of Alleged Crimes Committed by Mr. D. Novoselsky and Ms. L. Rosen Against Mrs. T. B. More and Ms. C. P. More and the Public” (a copy of which will be provided the Court on 8/17/09 prior to 9:15 a.m.) Combined Herein With Robert J. More’s Motion to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in the Case this Motion Concerns (“the Case”) Accompanied in this Document by What is Herein Titled as “Initial Abbreviated Component of 8/14/09 (“IAC”) of Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 1.) Petitioner Brooks’es Motion of 8/14/09 and 2.) Amicus Curiae Robert J. More’s Motion to File an Initial Component of 8/14/09 of an “Amicus Curiae Brief in Seriatum” in the Case this Motion Concerns of 8/14/09”

Now comes Petitioner Harry L. Brooks (“HLB”) and Intended Amicus Curiae Robert J. More (“RJM”) to move this Court to grant some form of relief the provision of which will ensure that no interference will be posited to the presentation of the evidence contained in the accompanying “First Superceding Component of Evidence to Be Presented to Grand Jury of 8/14/09 of Alleged Crimes Committed by Mr. D. Novoselsky and Ms. L. Rosen Against Mrs. T. B. More and Ms. C. P. More and the Public and in explanation and support whereof, Petitioner and Amicus, aver and explain as follows:

Since if this Court were to find the contents of the following averments to be too convincing for it to refuse to vacate its order issued on 8/5/09 in the case this memorandum concerns (“this case”) and to then issue an order either requiring the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of IL to immediately present the evidence contained in the ….. First Superceding… which accompanies this document to a special grand jury (“SGJ”) presently operating in the Northern District of IL, (“NDI”), or else to issue a declaratory judgment that no government official of any sort shall interfere with any presentation of evidence of any alleged federal crime to any federal grand jury presently operative in the NDI, or otherwise enjoin the positing of any type of interference by any government official of whatever type with the presentation of evidence of alleged criminal activity to any grand jury presently operating in the NDI, today on an emergency basis, the evidence which it is the position of various persons must be presented to a grand jury without delay without anyone’s having to incur any greater burden in any endeavor which might, absent the provision of such relief, have to be undertaken in order to convince this Court to provide the relief necessary to ensure that the “public which is entitled to everyman’s evidence” is not deprived thereof in the matters this document concerns, than will have had to have been born in order to procure such type order predicated upon the contents of this document. Thus, this IAC has herein been filed in order to accomplish the procurement of the relief described herein supra at the lowest possible cost.

Since neither Harry L. Brooks nor Robert J. More, see how either or both of them could possibly improve upon the treatment of the purpose of presentment clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. beyond the treatment thereof recently provided by retired N.J. Attorney, Mr. Leo Donofrio in an email he transmitted to various parties, the entirety of Mr. Donofrio’s email is included herein and RJM then adds a citation to a Supreme Court of the U.S. (“SCOTUS”) case regarding the independence of the grand jury in the constitutional scheme bequeathed to America from the authors of its Constitution, which has never been overturned or reversed which only corroborates Donofrio’s point about there being no legitimate basis upon which any member of the executive or judicial branches of the government of the u.S. of A. could ever possibly interfere with the activity of a grand jury in a situation in which the commitment to impartiality of any member of either such branch might reasonably be questioned, nor for that matter interfere with the independence whereof in any circumstances

There is no doubt that in the matters this case concerns, that any claim to the possession of a capacity and propensity to satisfy the requirements of an obligatory commitment to impartiality and the duty to provide the honest services of the exercise of the authority of an executive branch or judicial branch officer to which any judge to which this case would be assigned and all of the members of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the NDIN are subject, “could reasonably be questioned” to understate the case in the most profound but hopefully categorically disinterested and unobtrusive manner. The perpetration of the crimes allegedly perpetrated in re these matters temporarily directly benefitted the present claimant to the Office of the POTUS, howsoever lacking in legitimacy such claim indisputably is, and the cabal of individuals in his nominal "administration" and those he has supposedly appointed to various offices, the perpetrators of such alleged crimes have all demonstrated a commitment to accomodate the patently invalid and malicious agendas of such administration and the Rothschild Coterie whose bidding it has continued to do, and the victims of the crimes allegedly committed in such matters were and are the members of the "warmblooded" component of the population of the u.s. of A., in particular, baptized, peasant class persons (typical goyim), who profess to be Roman Catholics and who have not been willing to participate in the "Genocide of the Non-compliant and/or Otherwise Unecessary Goyim" presently in progress.

As RJM is not cognizant of the existence of any competent evidence that there are any Judges in the NDIN nor in the CCA 7 other than CCA 7 Judge D. Manion in whom it might be justifiably presumed that


there would be present sufficient fortitude to ensure the minimally adequate bearing of the burden of the exercise of the authority of a judicial office in regard to these matters and Judge and neither Brooks nor More is cognizant of even a single baptized member of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the NDI who has ever demonstrated even the slightest unwillingness to betray his or her baptismal promises (for example to execute such type betrayal by contributing to the prevention of the apprehension, arrest and prosecution of Mr. D. Novoselsky and Ms. L. Rosen), much less the possession of the requisite combination of adequately adjusted priorities and moral fiber necessary to exercise the authority of the office of a prosecutor according to a minimally acceptable standard of moral accountability, neither Brooks nor More can see how it could possibly be justifiably claimed that any of those listed herein infra could possibly justifiably interfere with the activity of any of the persons who have been intending to present evidence to a grand jury in any endeavor that might be undertaken to present any evidence of any alleged federal crime to a federal grand jury which this document concerns or with any deliberations and/or issuing of criminal process against Novoselsky and Rosen.

Although RJM is convinced that the “Memorandum Order of 8/5/09” posits no legitimate reliance basis upon which anyone could possibly have denied the “Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus” filed by HLB, to HLB, there is no need to demonstrate the fatal inadequacies of such document, if this Court were to grant the relief described herein supra based upon a minimally acceptable assessment of the identifiable purpose according to which the presentment clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the u.S. of A. was inserted therein, since it has never been removed therefrom and thus is indisputably still the Legem Terrae (Law of the Land) of the u.S. of A.

From Leo Donofrio:

The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government

[I originally posted this essay at my Citizenspook blog back in 2005.]

All of us may one day serve as grand jurors in federal court, and I hope this article will educate the reader to his/her true power as granted by the Constitution. For that power, despite having been hidden for many years behind the veil of a legislative fraud, still exists in all of its glory in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court has confirmed and reinforced that power.

So please, copy this report and paste it far and wide. It is not spin. It is not false. It is not for sale, it is not copyrighted by me, so paste and quote it freely. This report is the truth and we need truth, now, more than ever.

The Constitutional power of “we the people” sitting as grand jurors has been subverted by a deceptive play on words since 1946 when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted. Regardless, the power I am going to explain to you still exists in the Constitution, and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court despite the intention of the legislature and other legal scholars to make our power disappear with a cheap magic trick.

Repeat a lie with force and repetition and the lie becomes known as truth. In the case of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, the power of the grand jury, to return “presentments” on its own proactive initiation, without reliance upon a US Attorney to concur in such criminal charges, has been usurped by an insidious play on words.

Most of this article is going to quote other scholars, judges and legislators as I piece together a brief but thorough history of the federal grand jury for your review. But the punch line is my personal contribution to the cause:


My input into this vital fight is no more than the analysis of a few carefully used words. It only took a small sleight of pen back in 1946 to hide our power, and it won’t take more than a few words to take that power back. But a proper overview is necessary for most of you who are unfamiliar with the issue at hand. So let me provide you with some history and then we’ll see what went wrong and how to correct it.


I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.

In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.”

The 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”

An article appearing in American Juror, the newsletter of the American Jury Institute and the Fully Informed Jury Association, citing the famed American jurist, Joseph Story, explained :

An indictment is a written accusation of an offence preferred to, and presented, upon oath, as true, by a grand jury, at the suit of the government. An indictment is framed by the officers of the government, and laid before the grand jury. Presentments, on the other hand, are the result of a jury’s independent action:

A presentment, properly speaking, is an accusation, made by a grand jury of its own mere motion, of an offence upon its own observation and knowledge, or upon evidence before it, and without any bill of indictment laid before it at the suit of the government. Upon a presentment, the proper officer of the court must frame an indictment, before the party accused can be put to answer it.’ “

Back to the Creighton Law Review:

A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”

So, it’s clear that the Constitution intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight. But something strange happened on the way to the present. That power was eroded by a lie enacted by the legislative branch. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution still contains the same words quoted above, but if you sit on a grand jury and return a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge and the criminal charges you have brought to the court’s attention will be swept away. And the reason for this can be found in a legislative lie of epic proportions.

Mr. Roots weighs in again:

In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language.“[88]“

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP):

An offense which may be punished by death shall be prosecuted by indictment. An offense which may be punished by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or at hard labor shall be prosecuted by indictment…”

No mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7. But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

[W]hile the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:

There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “

That’s a fascinating statement: “Retention might encourage…the grand jury [to] act from their own knowledge or observation.” God forbid, right America? The nerve of these people. They have the nerve to put on the record that they intended to usurp our Constitutional power, power that was intended by the founding fathers, in their incredible wisdom, to provide us with oversight over tyrannical government.

And so they needed a spin term to cast aspersions on that power. The term they chose was, “runaway grand jury”, which is nothing more than a Constitutionally mandated grand jury, aware of their power, and legally exercising that power to hold the federal beast in check, as in “checks and balances”.

The lie couldn’t be inserted into the Constitution, so they put it in a statute and then repeated it. And scholars went on to repeat it, and today, as it stands, the grand jury has effectively been lied into the role of submissive puppet of the US Attorney.

The American Juror publication included a very relevant commentary:

Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. A particularly egregious example:

A rule that would permit anyone to communicate with a grand jury without the supervision or screening of the prosecutor or the court would compromise, if not utterly subvert, both of the historic functions of the grand jury, for it would facilitate the pursuit of vendettas and the gratification of private malice. A rule that would open the grand jury to the public without judicial or prosecutorial intervention is an invitation to anyone interested in trying to persuade a majority of the grand jury, by hook or by crook, to conduct investigations that a prosecutor has determined to be inappropriate or unavailing.’ [7]

What is the result? Investigating seditious acts of government officials can be deemed inappropriate or unavailing by the prosecutor, or the judge can dismiss the grand jurors pursuing such investigations. Consequently, corrupt government officials have few natural enemies and go about their seditious business unimpeded.

By the way, they made a rule to take care of runaways too, in 1946: Rule 6(g):

At any time for cause shown the court may excuse a juror either temporarily or

permanently, and in the latter event the court may impanel another person in place of the juror excused.’ Now judges can throw anyone off a grand jury, or even dis-impanel a grand jury entirely, merely for exercising its discretion.”

Now let me add my two cents to this argument:

Most of the discussion about Note 4 to Rule 7 of the FRCP takes for granted that the common law use of “presentments” (as codified in the 5th Amendment) was made “illegal” in 1946 by this act. Nothing could be more false. Note 4 does not contain language that makes the use of presentments “illegal”, although it had chosen its words carefully to make it appear as if that is what the legislative branch intended. But let’s look at Note 4 again:

4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”

The key word is, “obsolete”. Obsolete means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”. And therein lies the big lie. The legislature knew it could not directly overrule the Constitution, especially with something so clearly worded as the 5th Amendment, which grants a power to the people which has a long and noble purpose in criminal jurisprudence. But the federal beast legislative branch sought more power to protect themselves from the oversight of “we the people”, and in its vampire like thirst for more governmental control, it inserted this insidious Note 4 in the hope that scholars and judges would play along with their ruse, or in the alternative, their ruse would appear to be legally viable.

Let’s look at some authoritative legal resources which discuss Note 4:


Finally, federal grand juries’ subservience to prosecutors was exacerbated when the federal system eliminated the use of presentments, which allowed a grand jury to bring charges on its own initiative. (N35) Now, federal grand jurors cannot return charges in the form of an indictment without a prosecutor’s consent. (N36) Elimination of the presentment demonstrates the historical trend towards elimination of proactive features in the grand jury system.”

Did Brenner fall for the lie or did she cleverly further it when she said, “[T]he federal system eliminated the use of presentments”? The federal system did no such thing. Note 4 said the use of presentments was “obsolete”. First of all, Note 4 is not a law in itself. It is a Note to a law, and the law as written, does not have anything to say about presentments. You see the leap Brenner has made? The Constitution provides for “presentments”, then the FRCP are enacted and the Rules therein do not mention presentments, nor due they ban presentments, and if they did, such a ban would be unconstitutional, since an administrative enactment regarding procedure can not overrule the Constitution.

Regardless, it’s irrelevant, since the FRCP does not mention “presentments”. Note 4 simply states that “presentments” allowed for in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution have become “obsolete”, or outmoded, which is not to say that they were “eliminated”. Shame on you Susan Brenner. You know damn well that the Constitution can only be changed by an official Amendment to it. Nothing can be “eliminated” from the Constitution by an administrative note.

The use of presentments had become obsolete because the grand jurors were not aware of their power. So the use of “presentments” became more and more rare, and then in 1946 the legislative branch seized upon the moment to make this power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the Creighton Law Review as well:

Before the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — which made independently-acting grand juries illegal for all practical purposes — grand juries were understood to have broad powers to operate at direct odds with both judges and prosecutors…”

The FRCP did not make it “illegal for all practical purposes”. That’s patently false. I don’t know if Mr. Root, and/or Susan Brenner, were acting as the magician’s assistant, but I can’t imagine how these educated scholars could be so incredibly ignorant of basic Constitutional law. Give me a damn break.

But if enough people repeat the lie, the lie appears to be the truth.

But we have it on good authority, the Supreme Court, that the lie has no legal effect.

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”

The Note 4 lie is smashed on the SCOTUS altar, “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.” Take that Note 4!

Antonin Scalia effectively codified the unique independent power of the Fourth Branch into the hands of all citizens sitting as federal grand jurors. In discussing that power and unique independence granted to the grand jury, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

“‘[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ‘ “

I submit to you that this passage sets the stage for a revolutionary knew context necessary and Constitutionally mandated to “we the people”, THE FOURTH BRANCH of the Government of the United States. Besides, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches, I submit that there is a fourth branch, THE GRAND JURY, and “we the people” when sitting as grand jurors, are, as Scalia quoted in US v. Williams, ” a constitutional fixture in its own right”. Yes, damn it. That is exactly what the grand jury is, and what it was always intended to be.

Scalia also stated, that “the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside…” Id.

And finally, to seal the deal, Scalia hammered the point home:

In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48] “

This miraculous quote says it all, “…the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people.” The Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, gives rise to a FOURTH BRANCH of Government, THE GRAND JURY. We the people have been charged with oversight of the government in our roles as grand jurors.

And at this critical time in American history, we must, for the protection of our constitutional republic, take back our power and start acting as powerful as the other branches of government.

The law is on our side. So please spread this knowledge as far and wide as you can. We the people have the right and power under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to charge this government with crimes by returning presentments regardless of whether the US Attorneys or the federal judges agree with us. As the Supreme Court has so brilliantly stated, we are the “buffer between the Government and the people.”

Take the reins America. Pass it on. The Fourth Branch is alive and kickin’.” – L. Donofrio

HLB and RJM herein cite still other SCOTUS authority which it is the understanding of same, mandates the issuance by this Court of an order ensuring that a grand jury receives the evidence which is contained in the accompanying “First Superceding Component of Evidence to Be Presented to Grand Jury of 8/14/09….”

The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. There is every reason to believe that our constitutional grand jury was intended to operate substantially like its English progenitor….

In fact, grand jurors could act on their own knowledge and were free to make their presentments or indictments on such information as they deemed satisfactory….It acquired an independence in England free from control by the Crown or judges. Costello v U.S. (350 U.S. 359, 362).


It is the informed understanding of RJM that if this Court is committed to requiring itself to conduct its activity regarding its adjudication of this case according to a minimally acceptable standard of accountability, it will have to demonstrate, inter alia, the compatibility of its claim that HLB lacks standing to seek the criminal prosecution of any person with the presence of the presentment clause in the Constitution of the u.S. of A., the fact that it is a principle of statutory construction too axiomatic to require any citation to authority in support thereof that nothing is to be considered anomalous in any legal promulgation and that therefore the presentment clause cannot justifiably be considered to constitute nothing more than a guarantee of the provision of the consideration provided by the indictment clause, which follows it, and the fact that prior to 1850 most criminal prosecutions prosecuted in this country were prosecuted by private citizens. Indeed, given the dilapidated and diseased condition of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the NDI, it is certain that a special prosecutor will have to be appointed in order to vindicate the interests of the non-moral degenerate component of the population whose interests HLB and RJM continue to endeavor to champion regarding the matters this document concerns and that such prosecutor will have to be someone who is not an attorney licensed to practice law in IL.

Wherefore, HLB and RJM herein respectfully move this Court to grant the relief sought in the title to this motion or at least to provide the relief sought in the handwritten motion submitted to it on 8/13/09 and then to certify certain postulations for immediate appeal, as soon as such can be presented to this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Harry L. Brooks

Robert J. More

United States District Court

for the

Northern District of Illinois

Harry Brooks


V Case # 09-cv-4682

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois


Robert J. More – Amicus Curiae

Notice of Emergency Motion of 8/14/09

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to federal law, RJM does verify that he did file this notice and the accompanying motion on behalf of Petitioner H.L.Brooks with the United States District Court for Northern IL on 8/14/09 so that it can be adjudicated in the courtroom of Judge M. Shadur in the USDC for the NDI at 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL, 60604, on 8/17/09 at 9:15 a.m. a true and correct copy of which is herewith served upon you

Robert J. More

P.O. Box 6926

Chicago, IL 60680

312 545-1890


Under penalty of perjury pursuant to all applicable statutes, I, Robert J. . More do herein aver that I did hand deliver a copy of this notice of motion/certificate of service, and a copy of the accompanying: “Initial Component of 8/14/09….

to: the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of IL via hand delivery at its Office in the Dirksen Federal Building on 8/14/09.

Robert J. More