Record of Activity of RJM Regarding Endeavor to Retain Claim to Participate in Contra-Predatory Vigilante Remed(y)(Ies) In Regarding UND Illegal Seizure/Prosecution etc of 2009 Conversations Between RJM and 1. USMS Phone Attendant/Receptionist in Hammond IN of 4/29/14, 2. voice mail left for U.S. Atty in Hammond, IN - 219 937-5500, and on 4/30/14, 3. Clerk for USDC for Northern District of IN Ruth - 219 852-6500, who provided RJM phone #'s including that of the clerk for the USDC for NDIN in SB of 574 246-8000, 4. USMS - Supervising Deputy Pam Mozier ("USMSSPM") 574 236-8291 and U.S. Atty for NDIN in SB of 574 236-8287 - USMSSPM informed RJM that it was the position of the USMS for Northern Dist of IN ("NDIN") that no citizen could ever be permitted to present evidence to the FGJ anywhere, and nor could she provide RJM any information regarding which day of the month the FGJ convenes in the NDIN, 5. RJM petitioned for the remission of the names of supervisors to whom RJM could petition for the information RJM was then seeking - the day of the month that the FGJ convenes in NDIN and the location whereof and any document that restricts access to the FGJ to activity conductors other than citizens intent upon presenting evidence of violations of federal criminal statutes to the FGJ in the types of instances for which the presentment clause was included in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the u.s. of A. (situations in which a government prosecutor would be subject to a conflict of interest rendering it unjustified for the public's interest in the adequate punishment of crime(s) to be left at the mercy of the discretion of any government official) and for some type of office email so that RJM could transmit the information he was seeking to get delivered to the FGJ delivered to it through the Office of the USMS, but USMSSPM refused to provide RJM either measure of consideration, 6. RJM called the Office of the US Attorney for the NDIN. Throughout this conversation which RJM guesses lasted 12-15 minute or longer, RJM rempeatedly referenced Williams v U.S. and the purpose of the Presentment Clause of the 5th Amendendment to the Constitution of the u.s. of A. and the issue of the public not being left at the mercy of any conflict of interest to which any given government prosecutor might ever be subjected, and USMSSPM repeatedly asserted that whe was not a lawyer and that the USMS had nothing to do with the FGJ and that RJM would have to address the Office of the U.S. Atty for NDIN, until RJM would posit a question in ergar to RJM'accessing the FGJ in which case she would then revert back into the mantra re how this could never be permitted, so 6. RJM then called the Office of the U.S. Atty for NDIN ("USANDIN") and the receptionist/phone attendant at such office ("RPA") discussed the matters RJM was referencing and the RPA acknowledged that the issue of the presence of a conflict of interest to which any government prosecutor might ever be subject was a valid concern in regard to which she did not possess any formula, but that she would inquire in re whereto to her supervisor, while RJM would be kept on hold, to which RJM responded that RJM would call back in 5 minutes. When RJM called that Office again, he was connected to the Supervising of South Bend, IN, Office for U.S. Attorney for Northern District of IN, Asst. U.S. Atty, Mr. Kenneth Hayes, whose adddress is 204 S. Main St. Room M-01, South Bend, IN, 46601 - among the salient points of the conversation that ensued before RJM ran out of minutes on the cell phone he was then using were the question from Mr. Hayes - "why did you 'wait' so long?" which is the exact same question RJM encountered from the US Atty for NDIL paralegal RJM encountered in Nov of 2013 when endeavoring to get indictments issued, to which RJM responded in short that "you use the verb 'wait" but to my knowledge that verb could not possibly be justifiably used in regard to my record of activity over the past 15 years, as RJM has had to continue to fight innumerable battles in what RJM has understood to constitute RJM's "watch" in times of severe peril with endeavors to impose martial law having barely been kept at bay, some understanding of which ROA could be gleaned from accessing the website which RJM edits at: "thirstforjustice.tripod.com/TableContents.html". RJM explained the basis upon which he had been induced to rely in accessing the UND campus from the ONI and that RJM understood that he would receive a written trespass notice before being subjected to any arrest, which RJM never received, which would be one basis for a violation of 18 USC 242 which would relate to RJM's arrest and that a second basis for indictment pursuant to the provisions of 18 USC 242 would be that the UND property was quasi-public property such that any arrest executed whereupon even in instances in which any notice would have been provided which related to activity protected by various provisions of the u.s. Constitution would have constituted a violation of 242, according to the authority of Marsh v AL (_U.S._) and Robins - if RJM's memory serves him right v Pruneyard Shopping Center (_U.S._). RJM referenced Williams v U.S. or vice versa and R. Roots Law Review "If Its Not a Runaway Grand Jury, is It a Real Grand Jury" to Mr. Hayes, as the basis for RJM's understanding that no government official could ever legitimately interfere with the presentation of evidence by any citizen to a FGJ as the FGJ is not referenced anywhere in the ..., but is its own independent 4th branch of the government which must provide a check against government criminality. RJM referenced the SJCP and UND as government entities re the provisions of 242, citing Judge R. Lozano's opinion in denying UND's MTD in K. Torres v UND et al in which he opined that the UND was a government entity for purposes of 42 USC 1983 liability which RJM understands necessarily means that it is also such for 18 USC 242 liability as 242 is the criminal equivalent of 1983. Shortly whereafter, RJM's phone ran out of charge and went dead. RJM got $10 put back on it and called that Office back and the RPA informed RJM that the position of Mr. Hayes was that RJM would have to mail whatever he was committed to getting presented to the FGJ to the U.S. Attorney, and that RJM would not be provided any email address at such juncture, notwithstanding that RJM had sought such address. In re RJM's expression of concern regarding the convening of the FGJ for the Northern District of IN on a once a month basis, RJM was informed that any federal agency could present any evidence ever submitted to it by any citizen which would chronicle violations of federal criminal statutes whereever committed, in a theatre other than that of the Northern Dist. of IN in order to get an(y) indictment instituted before any given SOL.