thirstforjustice.tripod.com/deiamcurscot12111.html

Clerk - the petition this amicus concerns is scheduled to be considered in conference on 12/9/11. - See confirmation of service at bottom of documents included herewith. In a nutshell, if this document would not be delivered to such conference prior to its commencement, an accounting will be demanded, as to why such objective would not have been accomplished. The Clerk's Office of this Court has a long record of not processing petitions which it could be concluded, the members of such and/or the Supreme Court would not have possessed an interest to have considered and this is a condition which cannot legitimately be left uncorrected.

Document List of 12/1/11

1. D/L of 12/1/11

2. Petition of 12/1/11 for Leave...Amicus Curiae ...Cert....

3. Initial Component of 12/1/11 of Amicus Curiae Brief of 12/1/11

4. Application to File ... Fee

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Docket No. 11-528

STEVE DEI,

Petitioner,

v.

TUMARA FOOD MART, INC.,

Respondent.

————

On Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to the

Illinois Supreme Court

————

FIRST SUPERSEDING COMPONENT OF 12/1/11, YET TO BE PROOFREAD, TO BE SUPERSEDED AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PROVIDENCE PERMIT, SUBJECT TO RETRACTION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ITS TRANSMISSION, SHOULD IT BE THE OPINION OF ANY NUMBER OF CONSULTED INDIVIDUALS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPROVIDENTLY TRANSMITTED, OF PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI RECENTLY FILED IN THIS COURT IN REGARD TO DEI V TUMARA...., BY ATTORNEY MR. L. AMU IN REGARD TO THE MATTERS THIS DOCUMENT CONCERNS, AND FOR THIS COURT TO EITHER SUMMARILY GRANT THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN SUCH PETITION, OR AT LEAST FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ORDER WHICH WOULD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS, MR. L. AMU IS ENDEAVORING TO PROTECT IN REGARD TO SUCH PETITION FOR 120 DAYS SO THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS PLAGUING THE STATE COURT SYSTEM PRESENTLY OPERATIVE IN COOK COUNTY, IL, WHICH IS A DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF THE DEPRIVATION OF CITIZEN ACCESS TO THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY SEATED WHEREIN, AND THE ABYSMAL GENERAL CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT AND THE CCA 7 LOCATED WHEREIN, CAN BE ADDRESSED SUFFICIENTLY TO ENABLE A.) THIS COURT TO UNDERSTAND THE DETRIMENT WHICH IT IS EVIDENTLY GRAVELY OBLIGED TO PREVENT IN REGARD TO SUCH MATTER, AND B.) EXECUTE WHATEVER AFFIRMATIVE ACTS WOULD HAVE TO BE EXECUTED IN REGARD THE GRAVE OBLIGATION INCUMBENT UPON IT TO USE ITS AUTHORITY TO PREVENT TYPES OF DETRIMENT THIS PETITION CONCERNS WHOSE ONLY OTHER REMEDIES INVOLVE THE USE OF METHODS REFERENCED IN CHAMBERS V BALTIMORE AND OHIO RAILROADS (_U.S._) TO ELIMINATE DETRIMENT UNJUSTIFIABLY CAUSED IN A GIVEN INSTANCE, INCAPACITATE PREDATION PERPETRATORS AND ADMINISTER JUST RETRIBUTION FOR ANY PREDATION(S) EVER PERPETRATED IN ARRANGEMENTS IN WHICH ACCESS TO THE COURTS IS UNAVAILABLE

————

ROBERT J. MORE

Amicus - on behalf, but obviously not by any express designation, of everything warmblooded and everything else His Omnipotence, Christus Rex can still justify not hating

P.O. BOX 6926

CHICAGO, IL, 60680

(863) 688-9880, anselm45@gmail.com

12/1/11

Now comes Amicus Robert J. More to move this Court to grant the relief referenced in the title to this document and in explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows:

Accompanying this Petition is a Proposed Opinion of 12/1/11 and Amicus RJM herein demands that this Court either provide its signature whereto or if it would not do so, to provide an explanation demontrating that the non-provision whereof could possibly be justified, informing this Court that the matters this petition concerns will be addressed substantially more extensively in filings which would be submitted to this Court in regard to this Petition should the submission of any such be necessary.

Out of a deference to the requirements of the moral law, Prospective Amicus herein includes a salute to various instances of "Luciferian Agenda Confronting/Genocide Busting" activity conducted in Courts referenced in this document and those which accompany it, inlcuding but not limited to judicial orders issued by CCCC, IL State Judges J. Cox, S. McDunn, A. Burrell, M. Hogan, J. Ward, K. Flanagan, M.R. Minnella, many of those issued by R. Bartkowicz, and that of J. Lawrence, howsoever lamentable his overall record indisputably is (and RJM admits that he cannot see how anyone adhering to the abominable tenets of the Talmud could ever be legitimately permitted to exercise the authority of any government office), acknowledging what cannot sanely and logically, possibly be denied - namely, that human life begins at conception, as well as the accommodations of legitimate reliance interests provided by Judge Porter and Deputy Clerk W. Martino in June of 2011 in terms of not depriving citizens of access to the Courts via the shortening of any court day, and in the federal court located in Cook County, IL, orders issued by J. Nordberg, and the now deceased J. Alesia, as well as several issued over the years by CCA 7, Judge D. Manion. In addition the contribution to the legitimate and necessary development of the ajudicative process provided by all involved in the activity of Courtroom 2101 of the R. Daley Center ought not go unacknowledged. Since Dei's petition is scheduled to be considered in conference on 12/9/11, this document is herein truncated here.

Robert J. More

Proposed Opinion of 12/9/11

1. There is nothing in the record before this Court in regard to the matter this petition concerns ("this matter") which enables this Court to legitimately conclude that either any claim that a.)Tumara Foods, Inc nor its insurer never received a copy of the complaint and summons from Nomani in regard to Case # ... in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, before any default judgment was entered in such case or that b.) Nomani was not an agent of Tumara, or that C.) the substantial purpose of 735 ILCS 5/2-204 was not in its entirety, accomplished, in regard to execution of service of process in such matter, was ever posited in the trial court in regard whereto.

2. It is our understanding that the rule articulated in the concurring opinion issued in Marino v Ragan (_U.S._) acknowledging that insistence upon hypertechnical procedural compliance in a given instance constitutes no less a deprivation of (a) right(s) guaranteed by the Constitution of the u.s. of A. than more obvious blatant constitutional deprivations is applicable to the case sub judiciae.

3. This Court lacks the authority to disregard the duty incumbent upon it to remedy the detrimental consequences of the disregard of the protection of the Noncounterfeit Version of the Rule of Law which emanate from any denial of the process of law to which all citizens of this country are entitled from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the u.s. of A. in circumstances in which such citizens voluntarily and temporarily abstain from utilizing the means the moral law provides for the fulfillment of the duties imposed upon them by such law to use various components of the resources of this earth to satisfy the requirements such moral law leaves imposed upon them, in order to have any given claim to consideration adjudicated in a court established to provide remedies for detriment unjustifiably caused and correlatively incurred, in a given instance.

4. It is no less this Court's duty to exercise its jurisdiction to remedy the consequences of breaches of this nation's charter which are presented to it, than it is to abstain from exercising it in circumstances in which it would not possess legitimate jurisdiction.

5. If the rule this Court postulated in Brown v MI (_U.S._) that the judgment issued in the trial court case to which such rule referred, that such judgment was in fact void, due to the fatally defective standard and method according to which the proceedings from which such judgment emanated were conducted is to possess any precedential value at all, this Court cannot see in light of the duty incumbent upon all judges to adequately understand the scope of the restrictions within which judicial authority must necessarily be conducted for it to possess any legitimacy at all, and the authority defining such scope promulgated in Tumey v Ohio (_U.S._) that no judge possesses the authority to adjudicate any matter in regard to whose outcome he or she would possess an interest of the type referenced therein (and here the interest of a judge adjudicating a case in which a sibling's law firm would be a participant advocate for the damages claimed certainly surpasses that present in Tumey) how it could possibly justify not reversing the judgments challenged in Dei's petition.

6. The granting in Gideon v Wainwright (_U.S._) of certiorari to Gideon, even apart from the similarities of Dei's claimed injury to those of Brown referenced herein supra, but even moreso because of such glaringly conspicuous similarities, provides Dei ample clearance of any claim that might possibly be alleged in the abscence of such similarities that either any alleged procedural deficiency and/or the possibility of the dispostion of this matter upon any independent and alternative state ground could have possibly provided this Court any basis upon which to deny Dei's petition.

7. Parenthetically, this Court acknowledges the difficulty it has in believing that there could be any possible justification for the leaving in operation of any court system in which practitioners practicing wherein would have come to presume that they can predicate any claim for relief ever sought wherein upon a presumption that $273, 000.00 constitutes a de minimus quantum of damages and expresses its concern to cover its own lialibity for its contributing what it is gravely obliged to contribute to the prevention of the type of societal consequences of systemic court system corruption and criminality which Dei describes in his petition - the same types of consequences this Court in Chambers recognized can only be prevented by the morally legitimate use of force when no alternative means not involving such means has been left available.

8. Unparenthetically, the Clerk of this Court is ordered to tranmit a copy of this opinion to the Judiciary Committees of both houses of the U.S. Congress so that the members of such entities can use the machinery of 28 USC 592(g) to vindicate the public's interest in ensuring that if conditions are left in place in the court systems operative in Cook County, IL which would leave no morally legitimate choices of remedy to victims of judicial and lawyer perpetrated crimes other than contra-predatory vigilantism or domestic insurrection - the alternatives implicitly referenced in Chambers - but which were left unutilized to the enormous injury of all legitimate interests in the Teresa Schiavo atrocity - in regard to which this Court admits that it terribly failed all such interests - that blame for any of the types of consequences which have resulted from the use of such alternatives in past history could not legitimately be laid at the feet of the members of this Court for not having utilized all means legitimately at its disposal to protect the citizens of this nation from the predatory and cannibalistic use of the machinery of government to perpetrate predations which could never have been perpetrated in a given instance without the summonsing of the collective force of the body politic to facilitate the perpetration of a given predation.

9. To conclude, the magnitude and federal constitutional character of the duty breach Dei's petition concerns is so self-evident, that it is the position of this Court that it would not be a justified exercise of its authority to opine further in this regard, except to a.) remand the case to the trial court with instructions to return the case to the posture in which it was abiding prior to the filing of any motion to vacate the default judgment entered wherein, and b.) refer the matters concerned to the United State's Attorney for the Northern District of IL for the presentation pursuant to the provisions of 18 USC 3332(a) to any special grand jury presently conducting activity in such jurisdiction of the entirety of the record presented to this Court in regard to this matter so that the matter of the criminal and civil prosecution of the activity conducted by all of the Judges, Attorneys representing Tumara and/or its insurer, and the Officers of Tumara and such insurer, involved in the ajdudication of this matter prior to the filing of this petition can be adequately resolved, except in regard to the members of the Supreme Court of the State of Il who shall be providd 60 days from the date of the entrance of judgment in regard to this matter, within which to provide this Court an explanation why evidence of the activity of such members in regard to this matter ought not be presented to a federal grand jury, and b.) to herein order the United State's Marshal Service to refrain from the positing of any interference with any endeavors which would be undertaken in order to accomplish the presentation by any citizen of the evidence of the activity this petition concerns, pursuant to the contents of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the u.s. of A.'s Presentment Clause to the Federal Grand Jury presently assessing evidence presented to it in the jurisdictional area defined as the "Northern District of IL", pursuant to the authority promulgated in Costello v U.S. (_U.S._) and Williams v U.S. (_U.S._) regarding the independence of the federal grand jury and its insulation from what would constitute in any given instance, any unjustified influence from any member of any other branch of the government established pursuant to the content of the Constitution of the u.s. of A., accompanied by instructions that judicial violations of the provisions of 18 USC 242 have never been beyond the reach of such statute as was unequivocally confirmed in the opinion this Court issued in Dennis v Sparks (_U.S._), nor that in light of inter alia, the contents of 18 USC 1341, 1343, 1346 and/or 1961 et seq., has this Court ever provided its approval to any use of wires and or the U.S. mail for the purpose of the transmission of the types of entities transmitted in this matter.

It is so ordered:

_______________________________-

Addendum:

In whatever future forays into the obviously very serious, to understate the case, problems presently afflicting courts conducting activity under the jurisdiction of this Court in Cook County, IL, both state and federal, inter alia, this Court may have possess any legitimate choice except to address issues such as the Richman v Sheahan (270 F.3d 430) death of Mr. J. Richman on a Cook County courthouse floor as a consequence of the positing of a question on a traffic ticket, the use of the criminal prosecution system to prosecute innocent and/or manifestly penitent, co- bearers of the burden of the protection of what is left of a social order in this Country, from its further descent into the black hole of Talmudic Barbarity into which its descent continues to accelerate, the use of psychotropic drugs for the purpose of the complete destruction of such component of the population, court system conditions in general which are, not withstanding some exceptional arrangements still remaining in an ever dwindling number of "atypical oases of sanity", evidently substantially much worse than those in regard to which former U.S. Congressmen Laguardia and O' Connor's from New York's explanation on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives some 80 plus years ago regarding the reasons that they would abolish the federal judiciary in that period were they possessed of the capacity to accomplish such objective, were directed, the applicability of former SCOTUS C.J. J. Marshall's expression in Cohens v Va (_U.S._) (1 Cranch __) of his opinon that there could be no greater punishment for the sins of a people than that of an ignorant, corrupt and/or politicized judiciary to the condition of state and federal courts in which activty continues to be conducted there, the questions about the presumption of fitness (or more accurately the demonstration of a manifest unfitness) to exercise the authority of a judicial office necessarily implicated in the IL. Supreme Court's comparatively recent explanation that IL Courts possess jurisdiction over federal claims postulated in Blount v Stroud (_ Ill. 3d, _) of all of the judges who could not even understand the scope of the judicial authority any of them, respectively, swore an oath to exercise at a compensation plan of over $160,000.00 a year, the Now v Schiedler (_U.S._) demonstration of the antinomianism thugocracy criminal enterprise still in business at 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL., the evident lack of any Lk 11:21 profile individuals in Cook County, IL, the applicability to the ruins of Western Civilization presently found in Cook County, of Antonin Scalia's quote at Gregorian Univ. in Rome, in 1996, inviting his listeners to "do it the honest way, lead another revolution", the over 200 million dollars IL tax, fee and fine, payers have had to pay, at gunpoint of course, for wrongful convictions procured through the IL State Court system which were never imploded via the use of 28 USC 2241, a letter recently received by this Court referencing some of the other horrors of life in Cook County, IL and, well, if this addendum were not truncated here, it could go on ad infinitum and this Court has innumerable other horrors to address, sprouting as such continually are, throughout the Talmudic Barbaric Lead Colony of the Edomite Global Plantation (is it even possible that this is not the antecedent to which the references contained in Apoc. 2 and 3:9, refer?) , before a critical mass of this Country's gun owners in whom the voice of conscience has still not been entirely extinguished, decide in a manner analagous to the application of the reasoning processes utilized by such historical baptismal promise non-betrayers such as Guy Fawkes, Michael Collins and Clause von Stauffenbuerg, that, inter alia, the deafness to the demands of not only justice, but to even the barest minimum of human decency demonstrated by this Court in its Pontius Pilate hand washing handling of the T. Schiavo atrocity that the "ammonium nitrate remedy" is the only legitimate type of remedy left, via which to stop the NWO genocide of the goyim presently remaining in progress, and that no one who would endeavor to interfere with the utilization of such type remed(y)(ies) in any arrangment in which adequate commitment to the ensuring of the comprehensive coverage of the requirements of the moral law in regard to the use of Magna Charta Clause 61 type remedies would have been demonstrated, would find him or her self, beyond the reach of the utilization of such type remedy to any property to which he or she would ever possess legal title, and, depending on activity conducted by him or her in a given instance which would in any instance constitute morally unjustified interference with a morally necessitated endeavor ordered to the prevention of the shedding of innocent blood, bodily intactness and/or life. There may be no morally legitimate alternative, except to ensure that future orders of this Court directed towards courts from which the type of miscarriages of justice this order concerns would ever be addressed, would have to address such items as the minting of a new rule of statutory construction by the IL. App. Ct. in Dei v Tumara…, whereby it simply arrogated the authority to itself to delete the term “agent” from the wording of the process service statute it purported to quote in its opinion upholding the trial court’s miscarriage of justice judgment, the applicability of JFK's quote concerning the culpability for violent revolution attributable to those who make peaceful revolution impossible to the activity and inactivity of this Court in regard to the horrors which end up before it, a retraction of the award conferred by this Court, recently, obviously, entirely unjustifiably, upon Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, Chief Judge “leave the infants to whatever known sexual pervert would seek to adopt them” T. Evans - accompanied by a public apology for the entirety of whatever pain and loss its conferral caused, whether there could be any legitimate basis upon which the members of this Court could possibly justify not demanding that Congress pass the "Ammonium Nitrate Remedy Dispossession Act of 2012" as soon as possible in order to contribute to the removal of the temptations that the types of government, corporate and lawyer, activity, this certiorari petition concerns leave in place to predatory and correlative - counterproductive, vigilantism.

Finally because no opinion of this Court on any important matter would be complete without some type of quote of from that national treasure (even if not yet Catholic) Dr. Edwin Vieira, what follows is also included as a component of this order:

Edwin Vieira Jr.: Balderdash. A judicial opinion about the Constitution

is precisely that, and no more: just an opinion of some fallible human

beings who happened to occupy the Bench at that time. It may be

correct-or it may be incorrect. The Supreme Court does not determine

what the Constitution means; rather, the Constitution determines whether

a decision of the Supreme Court is right or wrong. Even the Supreme

Court has recognized that "[t]he power to enact carries with it final

authority to declare the meaning of the legislation". Propper v. Clark,

337 U.S. 472, 484 (1949). And We the People-not "we the judges"-enacted

the Constitution. It is our supreme law, not theirs.

Confirmation of reception of document, notice of claimed duty to transmit and ensure reception of & by ultimate recipient identified wherein and reception of notice that a request to admit, request to produce (a) document(s), interrogatory(ies) and/or a subpoena is scheduled to be issued and delivered in regard to this document within the next 120 days upon the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

In the "demand for information" referenced in the paragraph preceding this one, by whatever label appelled, will be included a demand for a complete record of the possession and transference of the document this document concerns thru the possession of each and every individual thru whose possession this document will have passed from the moment of its delivery to the moment at which it and an entire record of its processing would be demanded, and ultimately provided or not provided.