4/6/09 b.27 c. m. n.2
cc:http://www.geocities.com/thirstforjustice/(Master
Document List)(Doc.No.8)
Motion And Proposed Order For Declaration Of
Unconstitutionality As Applied Of
Provisions Of Criminal Codes -
Plaintiff’s Motion and Proposed Order of
Now comes the
Plaintiff (“RJM”) to respectfully move this Hon. Court to provide signatures in
the spaces adjacent to the entries included herein infra or explanations
justifying not doing so in any case in which this Court would not provide a
signature adjacent to a given entry, in
order to ensure that the Court’s moral
liability regarding its activity therein would not remain not adequately
covered and that if it would, that such lamentable conjectural condition could
in no way be imputed to any culpable negligence attributable to RJM and in
explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows:
1.
At this juncture,
howsoever the issues RJM presented in _____________________________________________________________________________to
this Hon. Court would end up being adjudicated, RJM considers it necessary to move this
Hon. Court to either sign a copy of
the postulation included herein infra or to have it recommend that such
postulation or something similar be signed by a judge conducting activity in a
court possessing authority over this Court, which postulation in its present
form is constituted as follows:
Declaration of Unconstitutionality of… Criminal Code(s)
Regarding Activity of …Robert J. More
1.
(It is herein proposed that any clause contained herein which would cause
any Court to refuse to sign this
document be stricken over the explicitly
confirmed and acknowledged objection of
the proponent thereof, so that no clause, the inclusion of which would render it impossible for such
proponent to presently procure a
signature upon this document, would be left herein such that the signature herein sought would remain
unprocured, without in the endeavor - to
procure a signature on a document which might facilitate the procurement
of some form of relief and/or the
elimination of some burden - there being present the making of any unjustified concessions to the activity
of the devil, and such that it could
never be claimed that the
proposition was unjustifiably conciliatory and/or characterized by concessions
which the proponent thereof would possess no authority to make, acknowledging
that in exigent circumstances wherein a
signature upon some modified version of
any original proposal could facilitate the procurement of a benefit
or the elimination of an evil, the effect of which would evidently be more beneficial to the interests of the
Catholic Church than would be whatever
condition would be left in place
as a consequence of whatever injury or loss
might accrue to such Church from
the non-inclusion of any clause in whatever declaration would have
been issued which would not include the
entirety of whatever would have been
included in the proposal originally offered, it is the proponent of this postulation’s understanding that the
procurement of a document in some
measure modified would not be unjustified, but that great solicitude must
necessarily be exercised in this regard, lest non-negotiables end up being
unjustifiably conceded and/or otherwise compromised.
(SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION))
By
the authority vested in this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the united States of America {or by any other
authority and/or any authority howsoever described (include any other
formulation here:_____________________)} as
the derivation of such authority
has been transmitted down through the centuries of the history of Western Civilization, through the succession
of generations reaching back prior to the signing of the Magna Charta on June 15, 1215 A.D. to the
signing of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 A.D., and in consideration of the consideration and protections to which the people of the
united States of America (“u.S.A”, “u.S.
of A.”))(or any other formulation describing the citizens of the 50 states that presently constitute the Union and/or Republic of the u.S. of A. howsoever described and/or
appelled) are entitled, correlative to the moral liability to which such
persons are subject under the immutable requirements of the natural law as such as been inscribed
upon the heart of every man (Romans 1:15 et al)
and that any arrangement at any juncture in place imputable to whatever
combination of contributing causes which would effectively constitute a
deprivation of the measures of
consideration guaranteed to all citizens of
such Union and/or Republic by amongst other provisions of such Constitution, those of the
Prohibition on the Establishment of a Religion, Prohibition on the Right
to the Free Exercise of Religion, Right
to Petition, Due Process, Supremacy and/or Guaranty Clauses of such Constitution and/or the prohibition on
slavery explicitly promulgated in the Thirteenth Amendment to such Constitution,
the prohibition on the denial of the equal protection of the laws and the
implicit prohibition present in the Fourteenth Amendment to such Constitution
of arrogations, encroachments, usurpations, infringements, transgressions
and/or predations which would ever constitute any type of deprivation of any of
the liberties English speaking persons have been accorded through the
centuries at least on paper as constituent components of “ordered liberty” by their government(s) as
such are actionable under what is classified as substantive due process in the
jurisprudence of the SCOTUS, this Court herein declares that all state, county and municipal laws are
unconstitutional as such might be applied and/or as any member of any government entity might ever endeavor to
apply such in the absence of the
issuance of this order to any measure which Robert J. More might implement
and/or to any endeavor in which RJM might ever participate which would have
been implemented and/or undertaken, whether in a given case, the intents and
purposes of a given agenda and/or
project concerning such matters, would
have been published, promulgated and/or declared explicitly or not, for purposes of the rectification via vigilante
and/or military measures of any
injustice(s) which it is RJM’s informed understanding presently prevails
in the matters which the case this document concerns in
_________________________________________ concerns and that further no
member of any policing entity may
endeavor to take Robert J. More (“RJM”) into custody pursuant to any
allegation of contempt of any type without RJM’s first being provided a
hearing in regard to any such type charge via the filing and adjudication of a
28 USC 2241 petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to be
presented in the first instance to either U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit (“11th C.C.A”)
Judge Charles Wilson, should any
such type charge have been postulated in any proceeding ever conducted in the
States of FL, and before either Supreme
Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”)
Chief Justice J. Roberts or SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito, should any such type
charge have been postulated in any proceeding conducted in any state other than
FL, with provision for the adjudication of any such type charge that might ever be postulated in FL , before
one of the two SCOTUS Justices listed
herein supra, should 11th C.C.A. Judge C. Wilson not be available in
a given case to adjudicate any habeas corpus petition which might ever be
submitted to him and/or the clerk of the
11th C.C.A.
_________________________,
_____________
Signature
Date
OR:
This
Court, ever mindful, that the authority
which it exercises in this case, has ultimately emanated from the consequences
of a commitment to use force by the English Peasants at Runneyemede in 1215,
were King John III not to grant them the concessions which they then and there
demanded as being the minimal consideration which they could accept, without in
accepting anything, less incurring a most egregiously sinful complicity in deprivations
and predations, the likes of which no
human being, created in God’s image and likeness, who would hope to retain a
claim to procure the reward promised to those who refuse to make any
unjustified concessions to evil & to avoid the punishment guaranteed to
those who do not require themselves to refuse to make any such type of
unjustified concessions, and who otherwise satisfy the requirements of the moral law in the conduct of their mortal lives at least to the extent
necessary to ensure that their moral liability would not have been left not
adequately covered in any substantial area in regard to which their activity in
the earthly theatre would ultimately be assessed (Matt. 25:26 et al), could justifiably accept from any sovereign,
and the actual use of force by those British American Colonists who in 1775,
refused to make the same type of
unjustified concessions to the predations and deprivations which the
then reigning British Sovereign was at that time perpetrating upon them;
acknowledges that no morally legitimate formula concerning the relations
of people and their government(s), could
ever be proposed which would not include provision for vigilantism and/or
domestic insurrection in situations in which means less likely to result in the types of
serious consequences which has always caused the Catholic Church to
insist that remedies for the rectification of
injustices and the resolution of
disputes alternative to those involving the use of force, always be
exhausted prior to anyone’s resorting to force for the accomplishment of such objectives, howsoever legitimate and
necessary the use of force for such
purposes might be in a given instance, be, but for the following reasons,
asserts that the conditions which would have to be present in order for
force to be justifiably utilized in these matters described supra are not
present at this time either because conditions independent of RJM’s control render the use of force unnecessary and hence unjustified which
are identified as follows __________________________________-,
__________________________________, ____________________ (use additional paper
as needed) or because RJM has not proven to this Court’s satisfaction that he
possesses the requisite combination of
adequately adjusted priorities and moral fiber for this Court to now
provide him the type of “Declaration
of Unconstitutionality as
Applied…RJM….” which this Court would
understand and consider that RJM would have had to have demonstrated in order for it to provide RJM such type order
_________________________________, and that further, correlative to this assertion that RJM simply
has not yet demonstrated the possession of
such type priorities and moral fiber to this Court’s satisfaction, this
Court herein informs RJM that if RJM
would complain that it would be RJM’s position that such position of the Court
could not on the whole be justified, that RJM would be welcome to explain to this Court the basis
upon which RJM would posit such claim, so that upon the consideration of any such postulations as RJM might present in
this regard, this Court could without further delay and the imposition of any
further burden upon RJM in this regard, issue the type of order RJM has sought herein, or that RJM
would have to satisfy the following exact requirements and/or make the following exact modifications
in his priorities and/or modus operandi in order to procure the type of
order which he has herein sought ___________________________,
___________________________, _____________________-(use additional paper as
necessary).
2.
This Court is reluctant to provide any affirmative endorsement of the nature
proposed herein, but at this juncture would
at least provide a nihil obstat
– indicating that it could not see any reason why some Court of higher authority than this ought have any
reluctance to provide a signature on the document or something similar in
regard to the activity of Robert J. More
in general (subject to the following restrictions, limitations and
prohibitions) _________________,
______________, _____________.
Robert J. More
thirstforjustice@yahoo.com