United States District Court

for the

Northern District of Indiana

Robert J. More


V Case #

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, USMS for NDIN, University of Notre Dame ("UND") , Office of the President of the UND, Notre Dame Security Police, Office of the General Counsel of the UND, Saint Joseph County, IN Sheriff's Police, Clerk of the St. Joseph County, IN, Superior Court


First Superseding Component of 5/16/14 of Petition for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") of 5/15/14: 1.) Transmitting this Complaint to CCA 7 Senior Judge Daniel Manion for Adjudication in the First Instance in the Form Several Times Used in District Courts Conducting Activity Under the Authority of the CCA 7, 2.) Enjoining the Continued Positing of Interference with the Independence of the Federal Grand Jury in ND of IN, Both as to Presentations of Evidence in re Whereto and to the Protection from Any Influence in Any Deliberations Conducted Whereby Which Absent the Granting of the Consideration Herein Sought Might Be Exercised by Any Member(s) of the Executive and/or Judicial Branches of the Nominal Government of the u.s. of A. in Regard to the Effecting of the Institution of Criminal Charges for Violations of Among Other Components of the Constitutions and Federal Laws of the u.s. of A., Those of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the u.s. of A. and 18 USC 242, 241, 1346, and/or 1961 et seq. in Regard to the Illegal Siezures, etc. Perpetrated in re the Univ of Notre Dame's 2009 Commencement Ceremony, 3.) Immediately Appointing a Special Prosecutor to Attend to the Criminal Prosecution of the Matters this Document Concerns ("These Matters") Who would not Constitute Simply an "Alter Ego" of the Nominal Government Prosecutor in re whereto, 4.) Appointing Robert J. More to Such Role if No Licensed Attorney Who Would be Capable of Adequately Protecting the Legitimate Reliance Interests these Matters Concern Could be Appointed Immediately, Subject to Future Replacement By Somone Fitting the Profile Referenced Herein, 5.) Institute a Special Grand Jury and Get Criminal Charges Instituted Pursuant to the Provisions of 18 USC 3332(a) if Necessary, and as Might be Necessary 6.) Issue a Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to the Provisions of 28 USC 2201 and/or 2202, and/or the Equitable Authority of this Court, for the Purpose of Tolling Any and All Statutes of Limitations ("SOL"), which if Untolled, would be Set to Expire in Regard to These Matters on 5/15 or 5/19 of 2014, respectively, 7.) Order the Individuals and/or Entities Referenced in the "Proposed True Bill ("PTB") of 4/29/14" and/or "PTB of 5/13/14" as the "Individuals to Be Indicted" (or something to that effect, in any case - the individuals whose names are included in the only list of over 12 persons included wherein), copies of which can be Accessed at: "" and ", respectively, to inform all of those under their control that Robert J. More has been endeavoring to get such individuals indicted for violations of 18 USC 242 prior to the expiration of any untolled SOL in regard to such matters, and To Provide Confirmations of Such Notifications and in Regard to Anyone Listed Wherein Not Accessible Via the Use of Such Formula to Provide RJM the last Known Telephone Number, Residence and Email Addresses Possessed by Any Employer in re Any of Such Individuals who Would Not Any Longer be Employed by Any of the Entities Included in the List of Respondents in this Case, and Otherwise 8.) Provide Such Consideration as Would Have to Be Provided In Order to Ensure that no Crime Perpetrator in Regard to These Matters would Succeed in Exploiting RJM's Temporary Abstention from Participation in the Use of Any Contra-predatory Vigilante Remedy for the Adequate Remedying of these Matters Via Any Illegitimate Invocation of any SOL Defense to Any Criminal Charges Which Might Ever Be Instituted in Regard to These Matters, and 9.) Require Whomever a.) Made the Determination Allegedly Made by the Office of U.S. Attorney for the NDIN and/or Any Other Representative of the USDOJ to Not Present the Evidence Presented to It in re the Violations of Federal Criminal Laws RJM has Submitted Whereto to Present Such Evidence to Some Federal Grand Jury ("FGJ") or Other, and b.) the Members of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the NDIN, and USMS for the NDIN and Any And All Other Representatives of the U.S. Dept of Justice ("DOJ") Involved in the Prevention of Access to the FGJ in NDIN at a Level of Participation Wherein Rising Above the Level of Remote and Non-necessary Cooperation" in Such Endeavor(s) in re These Matters to be Subject to the Conducting of (a) Deposition(s) by RJM via the Use of An Electronic Recording Device Sometime in the Next 30 Days, 10.) Take Judicial Notice that Apart from the Standing that All Citizens Possessing an Interest in the "Upholding of the Law" and that the Duties of the Offices of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government be "Faithfully Executed" (Art. II, Sect. 3) Have in Getting Criminal Charges Instituted for Violations of Federal Criminal Laws, that as an Arrestee in re the Notre Dame 2009 Commencement, that RJM Possesses a Standing Distinguished from Such General Standing in that the Denial of the Institution of Such Criminal Charges in re These Matters Has Resulted in RJM's Being Denied the Benefit Which RJM would Receive from a Criminal Conviction for a Violation of 18 USC 242 in that Were Such Type Conviction Secured in Re These Matters, that RJM Could Then Use Such Type Conviction to Collaterally Estopp Any Civil Defense on the 42 USC 1983 Cause(s) of Action which RJM is About to Refile in Regard to Such Matters in Regard to Liability, thus Leaving RJM Deprived of the Consideration Defined as "Being Spared the Expense of an Unnecessary and Hence Unjustified Civil Prosecution Pursuant to the Provisions of 42 USC 1983" and in a Scenario in Which This Petition Would not be Adjudicated by CCA 7 Judge D. Manion in the First Instance, to: 11.) Take Judicial Notice that RJM Does Not Consent to Have this Petition Adjudicated by Anyone Who Has Either Taken a Kol Nidre Oath or Any Other Oath Which Would Render the Oath Taken to Uphold the Constitution of the u.s. of A. of No Effect, nor By Anyone Else Who Does not Consider Persons Not Born to Jewish Parents to be Human Beings, Nor By Anyone Unwilling to Bear the Burden of the Accommodation of any and All Legitimate Reliance Interests the Adjudication of this Document Concerns Regardless of the Consequences to Himself in the Bearing of Such Burden, but That RJM would Accept the Granting of the Consideration Sought herein, Under Protest. by Whomsoever Granted, In Order to Procure such Consideration Without in So Procuring It, RJM's Incurring Culpability for Any Sin of Any Type, Such as Might be Incurred in re Whereto, from the Making of Any Given Concession to Demonically Instigated Activity, the Making of Which Would not be Permitted by the Requirements of the Moral Law, or Else, Simply Now 12.) Declare the Unconstitutionality of Any and all Federal and State Criminal Laws in re any and All Activity Which would Ever Be Conducted by Robert J. More for the Purpose of the Adequate Remedying of these Matters, in re Which Any Enforcement Measure(s) Might Ever Be Implemented in re Such Matters in the Abscence of the Issuance of Such Type Declaration, 13.) Issue Such Order in this Case As it Would be Necessary to Issue In Order to Ensure that No Res Judicata Defense to Prevent Any Adjudication Whereof Upon Any Bivens and/or Any Other Basis at Any Future Juncture Could Ever Be Invoked, 14.) Take Notice in re the Burden Defined at: "", 15.) Take Judicial Notice that this Complaint has been Filed Conditionally, Subject to Retraction of Any Component(s) whereof, Upon RJM's Receiving Any Notiifcation that Any Component Whereof would be Incompatible with Any Component of Non-counterfeit Roman Catholic Doctrine that Would Evidently Possess Legitimacy[End of Title]

Petitioner Robert J. More ("RJM") under the duress of time constraints herein moves this Court to grant whatever consideration referenced in the title to this complaint, with provision for the supplementation and/or supersession whereof, as the circumstances of Providence would permit, that this Court would have to grant in order to ensure the adequate coverage of its moral liability in re this matter.

Since Robert J. More, cannot see how he 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.

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 the entirety of the Judges of the USDC for the NDIN 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 perpetrators of the crimes allegedly committed are all affiliated with the present claimant to the Office of the President of the u. S. of A. (howsoever illegitimate such claim evidently is) and of the innumerable victims of such crimes as this document concerns, the particular victim seeking redress in the matters this document concerns, is a peasant class person (typical goyim) – RJM , who professes to be a practicing Roman Catholic. RJM is only too familiar with the most conspicuous and destructive predilection toward evil by which the judiciary in the NDIL and the C.C.A. 7 is afflicted. RJM cannot see how the NDIN could likely be much better than the NDIL. The CCA 7 is a status quo preserving entity. Regarding the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the NDIN, RJM is not cognizant of even a single baptized member of such office 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 those who have perpetrated the crimes delineated in the documents which this document accompanies), 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, RJM cannot 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 those whose names have been included as crime-perpetrators in the documents which this document accompanies.

From Leo Donofrio:

 HYPERLINK "" \o "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government" 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,  HYPERLINK "" 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  HYPERLINK "" 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. HYPERLINK "" “[88]“

 HYPERLINK "" 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  HYPERLINK "" 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  HYPERLINK "" 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  HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn2" 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.’  HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn7" [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 kthis power disappear by waving its magic wand over the Constitution.

Mr. Root got it wrong in the  HYPERLINK "" 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.

 HYPERLINK "" 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  HYPERLINK "" 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 any claim it might be tempted to ever make that RJM 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 reality that the deprivation of a criminal conviction in re these matters given the factual predicates which have been presented in regard to the Notre Dame 2009 Commencement, would result in the deprivation of RJM's claim to not have to prosecute the Crime Perpetrators these matters concern in regard to liability, but could collaterally estopp any civil defense of any 42 USC 1983 case which RJM will eventually get refiled via any criminal conviction for violation(s) of 18 USC 242 (as for example, Rodney King did in re his beating) 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 NDIN, 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 RJM continues to endeavor to champion regarding the matters this document concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert J. More

Presently Operative Notice to Members of the Slavemaster Class Whom.... "thi.../rothscnot42314.html".

United States District Court

for the

Northern District of Indiana

Robert J. More


V Case #

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, USMS for NDIN, University of Notre Dame ("UND") , Office of the President of the UND, Notre Dame Security Police, Office of the General Counsel of the UND, Saint Joseph County, IN Sheriff's Police, Clerk of the St. Joseph County, IN, Superior Court

Notice of Petition for TRO of 5/15/14

Under penalty of perjury pursuant to federal law, RJM does verify that he intends to file this Complaint as soon as he arrives at the USDC for the NDIN, in Hammond, IN, on 5/15/14 in the United States District Court for Northern IL on so that it can be adjudicated on 5/15/14 and that RJM emailed and/or provided notice of the commitment to file such petition to those listed herein supra and succeeded in actually providing such notice by 1200 noon on 5/15/14 in regard to:

Robert J. More

P.O. Box 6926

Chicago, IL 60680

863 688-9880, 219 588-7738,


All parties listed herein supra notified via email or phone on 5/15/14

Robert J. More

Document List of 5/15/14 in re Federal Complaint - UND FGJ

1. D/L of 5/15/14 - UND - FGJ

2. Petition for Issuance of Nihil Obstat from ISMA CLT in re UND 2009 Commencement Crimes

3. Initial Component of Complaint of 5/15/14 Containing TRO, Subject to Supersession.... X

4. In Forma Pauperis Petition of 5/15/14 X

5. Subpoena re Deposition of AUSA NDIN, K Hayes

6. Invitation of 5/14/14 to Nominal U.S. Attorney General, Nominal U.S. Marshal, U.S. Attorney, USMS Marshal, & Any and All AUSA's and any Deputy U.S. Marshals for NDIN, Responsible Beyond the Level of "Remote, Non-necessary Cooperation" for the Prevention of the Institution of Criminal Charges in Regard to the Petition for Indictment et al of 4/29/14 in re Notre Dame 2009 Commencement Federal Crimes &/or Any Superseding Components Whereof to Demonstrate the Non-incurrment of Criminal/Tort Liability in re Whereto

7. Initial Component of 5/15/14 of Petition for Indictment in re the Federal Cover-up of the Notre Dame 2009 Commencement Federal Crimes

8. First Superseding Component of 5/16/14 of Complaint of 5/15/14 ....

9. List of URL's Referenced in this Collection of Documents

10. List of Acronyms Utilized in this Collection of Documents

11. Record of Time Consumed and Expenses Expended in re Fed. Comp. re UND, FGJ

12. Dr. R. Roots - Grand Jury Gone Wrong - LR

13. R. Roots, J.D. - If its Not a Runaway Grand Jury, Is it a Real Grand Jury? - LR

14. Leo Donofrio, J.D. - Treatment of the Fifth Amendment's Presentment Clause

15. Williams v U.S. or vice versa SCOTUS Opinion re Independence of FGJ

16. Roman Catholic Dispute Resolution Chart of 10/22/12

17. Magna Charta Clause 61 and Papal Christmas Message of 1956

18. John Wolfgram - The Lost Right to Petition - LR

19. Declaration of Unconstitutionality of Any and All Federal and State Laws...RJM...Resolution of This Dispute

17. Petition for Indictment to FGJ Foreperson of 4/29/14

18. First Superseding Component of 5/13/14 of Petition for Indictment....

19. Civil Cover Sheet

20. Proposed Order of 5/15/14

21. Petition to CCA 7 for Removal of Filing Restriction Unjustifiably Imposed upon RJ More

22. Petition to Have this Complaint Adjudicated by CCA 7 Judge D. Manion in First Instance

23. Initial Abbreviated Component of 5/15/14 of Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for TRO of 5/15/14 in re UND-FGJ

24. Prevent Worst Case Scenario Formula re Participation in Nominal Government Court Adjudications at This Juncture in the History in the u.s. of A.

25. ISMA's Present Position in Regard to the Burden of Govt Officials to Accommodate the Burdens to which All Citizens are Subjected via the Provisions of the Fourth Commandment to the Decalogue to Contribute to the Monitoring, Auditing and Controlling of Any And All Exercises of Government Authority Adequate to Ensure the Prevention of the Causing of Net Detriment Wherefrom

26. Invitation(s) to Endeavor to Demonstrate that the Decision Not to Notify RJ More that No Opposition would be Posited to his Accessing the Federal Grand Jury in re the Notre Dame 2009 Commencement Siezures Did Not Result in the Incurrment of Criminal and/or Tort Liability by Whomever Made Such Decision & Correlative Invitation re Non-Presentation of Evidence to FGJ

27. Invitation(s) to Endeavor to Demonstrate that the 5/15/14 Rejection by the Pro Se Manager of the Clerk of the CCA 7 of Robert J. More's Petition for the Recission of the Filing Restrictions Presently in Place Upon Him as Imposed by the CCA Did Not Result in the Incurrment of Criminal and/or Tort Liability by the Rejector Whereof

Entries supra adjacent to which there is an "X" have been included in the filing of 5/15/14