U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitR.J. More v Petition for Review ofNo. 01-3224 Dept. of LaborU.S. Dept. Of Labor No. 01-044 Petitioner ("RJM"'s) Verified Motion of 8/30/02, in Which He Provides Notice to this Court of What He Intends to Do in Regard to the Continued Prosecution of This PetitionNow comes the Petitioner, RJM, to provide notice to this Court that this is what he intends to do in regard to the continued prosecution of this case:1. On 8/23/02, Judge D. Wood issued an order setting the date due for the Petitioner’s brief as 8/30/02, & setting other dates, denying RJM’s petition to file his briefs under seal & denying the rest of RJM’s petitions as frivolous.
2. This decision threw RJM into another tailspin, as RJM has to continue to walk the tightrope that is the straight & narrow path that constitutes accomplishing compliance with the burdensome & grievous requirements of the moral law, neither erring on the left nor on the right, neither sinning by defect nor by excess, neither neglecting to demonstrate the graciousness & deferenciality towards other human persons who are not yet in hell & who therefore still possess the capacity to make the adjustments necessary to avoid ending up there, on the one hand nor the fortitude & refusal to capitulate & make concessions that one lacks the authority to make, when one encounters morally unjustifiable conduct, conducted by the same persons to whom one is required to accord a measure of graciousness & deferenciality on the other.
3. Indeed, so afflicting is this ongoing ordeal that if it were not certain that the obligation to voluntarily continue suffering through it were temporary, it would indeed be humanly unbearable.
4. Having to refrain from either implementing vigilante measures & or participating in domestic insurrection/slave uprising until after having demonstrated that no forum exists in which Burden-bearing, Rule of Law Abiding, Private Sector Producer/Protector/Provider Citizens (“BRLAPSPPPC”)can get rights vindicated & illegally caused harms remedied & injustices rectified, is truly a cross of enormous weight to be continually borne. Not a night goes by that RJM does not beg that he be taken in his sleep, & that the Lord just settle all the accounts, instead of permitting RJM to have to continue to negotiate his way through this treason & cannibalism infested contemporary society.
5. Lamentably, thus far, RJM has not been delivered from his ordeal, but is still stuck with the obligation to endeavor to get his accounts of conscience settled in the forums supposedly maintained for the purpose of enabling parties to settle accounts without the utilization of physical force to accomplish the objective.
6. But for the uneliminable requirements of this same immutable moral law, & the eternal consequences of violating them, it can be known with certainty, that RJM would just ingress upon the property of the tortfeasor, confiscate enough property to balance the moral accounts presently still unbalanced, deal with whatever interference he might encounter in the process, & put all of this affliction of balancing accounts to rest, or end up himself, being put to rest in the process, & thereby join the millions who have departed this earthly battlefield in the cause of righting wrongs, fighting iniquity & violence, & trying to preserve the principle of Lex-Rex, The Rule of Law against all of the forces of iniquity from which it is ever under seige.
7. As matters stand at this juncture in history, it seems to RJM to be the case, that should he not prevail in this appeal, he would still have to make an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, sue the U.S. on a FTCA claim , sue any appellate judges in a suit containing a challenge to “sovereign immunity”, add a wrongful termination in violation of a public policy count to a state court suit, against the same tortfeasor & then finally sue in the World Court & lose in each & every forum before RJM could legitimately claim a right to rectify matters on the same moral basis that the Barrons at Runneyemede, the Colonists at Lexington MA, the peasants in the Vendee, & every righteous rectifier of wrongs that has ever had cause to use force or the prospect of using it, made claim to the justified use of force to accomplish the ends of justice.
8. The simple solution to the problems that RJM has encountered in his endeavors to rectify the injustices of which this case is constituted would be for the legislature to just modify the criminal laws, so that it would be impossible for government & corporate tortfeasors & felons to prosecute common citizens for vigilante acts that the present alignment & accountability problems that plague formal tribunals, which in turn, make it practically impossible for the common citizen to acquire justice in such tribunals (cf. Charles Rice, The Winning Side, Chuck Colson, Michael Brown, Robert Bork, Joseph Sobran etc. etc), necessitate as the only morally acceptable alternative to the type of domestic insurrection Justice Scalia has encouraged be incepted (The Winning Side, p. 103) as a means of righting the wrongs that result from the crimes & torts that government & corporate entities now commit with impunity.
9. As matters stand, with legislatures not yet having enacted the type of laws that would have rendered the production & assessment of this document totally unnecessary, & the very existence of this Court as irrelevant to the lives of citizens such as RJM as it would have the lives of those such as RJM to the members of this Court, in the indicative mood, circumstances being what they presently are, RJM must continue to respond in this particular case, to what he encounters in this “Post-Fall, Extra- Garden, Vale of Tears”, until he can either prevail upon the merits of this case or produce enough evidence to demonstrate that there is no forum either in IL, IN & WI, or at any higher level, in which a BRLAPSPPPC can obtain a decision on the merits of a case, to justify RJM’s implementing measures on his own accord to get this whole affair straightened out to a condition that will not leave RJM without a presumptively legitimate claim on eternal salvation.
10. In other words, this Court can rest assured that there is no way that RJM would be in any way interacting with it, if there were any possible choice in the matter (this does not apply to any anti-abortion, anti-[R]ex Lex Judge), nor that RJM would write a word he thought he could justify sparing.
11. How much easier this all would have been if only the Court has just granted all the relief that RJM sought in that motion.
12. But for both the denial of the relief RJM had sought, & the non-provision of an explanation for such denial that would enable RJM to morally justify submitting his petitioner’s brief without having it sealed, RJM could have just submitted his petitioner’s brief.
13. As the matter stands, RJM simply cannot submit the petitioner’s brief or a reply brief to the Court until he has ensured that his just claims are protected from the foreseeable harm that would accrue to them should the Respondent’s Attorneys take the legal arguments out of either of the briefs, & on remand, should the Court decide not to render a final decision against the Respondents in this adjudication but rather remand the case to the Agency for further proceedings, program their witnesses to modify their testimony so that it is pigeon-holed in pigeon-holes that would enable the Respondents to ultimately evade what are supposed to have been the legal consequences of their statutory-breaching activity.
14. Lest any judge claim that this is not a legitimate concern, RJM herein provides notice that this is exactly what R&L Carriers did in the Agency proceedings.
15. On the date upon which RJM was terminated, no cause was given at all for the termination, as it was claimed that none was needed. One week later, the company made up a cause – ie driving too many hours, & when RJM explained to the Corporate Safety Director that he was forced to drive the hours he drove by the Terminal Manager, the Director changed his position back to the orginal one – ie that none was needed.
16. After RJM filed the OSHA complaint, & R&L retained legal counsel to answer it, a number of entirely substanceless pretexts were constructed & it was these baseless claims that, because of the deplorable deficiency of the proceedings & the political connections of the law firm R&L retained, ended up enabling R&L to prevail in the Agency proceedings without ever producing a single linquistically adequate, rationally grounded, logically tenable, constitutionally permissible, natural law justice-compatible argument.
17. R&L’s mendacious Attorney’s (sic) simply conjured up & slapped together a hodge-podge of completely uncorroborated & unsubstantiated self-interested allegations, inserted them into the McDonnell Douglass paradigm & passed the façade produced thereby off as a defense to RJM’s claims.
18. There is no way in good faith that RJM could abide by the denial of his petition to file sealed briefs, unless the Respondent is estopped from modifying the positions that it took in Agency proceedings in the case that a remand occurs from this adjudication.
19. To simply file the brief without providing for this foreseeable contingency, would be an act of capitulation, betrayal & dereliction that no claim regarding any concern to demonstrate deferenciality to an order of the Court could possibly justify.
20. In a nutshell, the proposal implicitly present in this Court’s order of 8/23/02 is simply one that RJM lacks the authority to accept.
21. RJM is bound by the duties of care to which he is subject, & one of those is to protect property for which he will have to provide an accounting.
22. The property at stake - three years back pay & employment reinstatement is too valuable to jeopardize out of any predilection to obey authority unreflectively.
23. Indeed the onerous burdens of Non-counterfeit Christian citizenship require disobedience to unjust orders every bit as much as they require obedience to just orders. The U.S. of America was founded upon the principle that government would be dependent upon the consent of the governed, not upon carnal appetite-based fiats.
24. In the case cited by Judge Wood in the Order issued on 8/23/02 in support of the position she takes therein, she cites Baxter… (297 F.3d 544), as supporting her claim that the claims raised in RJM’s petition are not appropriate ground (sic) for mainta[in]ing documents under seal in this court.
25. With appropriate respect, the grounds RJM stated in his brief do indeed abide in one of the venn diagram categories that the Baxter opinion cites as grounds upon which documents may be filed sealed, in that besides the protecting of trade secrets, the Court in that opinion cited any other legitimate grounds as cause for sealed filings, & it certainly cannot be claimed that the concerns RJM has articulated in the motion he filed on 8/23/02 are not legitimate grounds.
26. Rather than herein produce a lengthy comparison & contrast of the issues raised in Baxter, both in terms of the substantial issues at stake, the conduct of the parties & the tone & content of the Court’s response in that case to those in this case, RJM is going to simply notify the Court of what he is going to do, & then respond to the Court’s response. Hopefully, this imposition of structure will expedite the resolution of this potentially critical issue.
27. This is what RJM will do in regard to the sealing of the briefs issue.
28. This motion will be filed on August 30, 2002. If the Court grants RJM permission to file the briefs under seal, to be kept under seal only until after the proceedings in the case are terminated in this Court & before the Agency & any other federal court, then RJM need not file another motion analyzing Baxter… & demonstrating how that opinion supports all of the reasons RJM claims he needs to file the briefs under seal, but rather, RJM will just file the brief.
29. If the Court will not grant such relief, then RJM petitions it to issue an order estopping the Respondent from modifying any position it has taken in its defense of this case.
30. This type of imposition of an estoppel would accomplish the same effect as the filing of the documents under seal as it would protect RJM from incurring harm from a change in position that Respondent R&L Carriers would make based upon an assessment of legal arguments present in RJM’s briefs but not present elsewhere.
31. This type of estoppel would, other than the sealing of the record, be the only evident just disposition of the case on remand, as the Respondents’ efforts to prevent RJM from obtaining the protections the law is supposed to provide (access to records, cross examination, not to be harmed by perjury or any other criminal activity) render them without any basis upon which to assert any due process or equal protection claims of any type, as it is axiomatic that no one can lay claim to forms of consideration he would see another denied.
32. A third acceptable alternative would be to assure RJM that in the event that he prevails in this Court, that he would be rendered all the relief the statute is supposed to provide from this Court, without any remand being implemented.
33. If this Court will not now render one of the three types of relief enumerated supra, then RJM will file a motion containing a complete assessment of the Baxter… case & of other relevant cases so as to obtain an acceptable response in regard to the issue, or at least to have preserved the issue for further review.
34. Since Sidley & Austin & Winston-Strawn were both given three opportunities to state their cases for protecting information from exposure, this Court certainly would not be able to justify denying me [RJM} the relief herein sought.
35. In the case that this Court requires RJM to file a motion further demonstrating the reasons he ought to be able to obtain one of the three forms of consideration enumerated in pars. # 27, 28 or 30 supra, before filing his brief, RJM will file a motion further explaining his position.
36. In the case that either the Court categorically denies the requests for relief sought in this motion or denies the requests for relief sought in the conjectural motion described in par. # 33 supra, RJM would then provide it formal notice that, should he in the end lose this case because the Court refused to provide him the protection from the type of change in position that R&L has already executed in the earlier stages of this case (see explanation pars. #15-17, supra), that RJM would then present the petitioner’s brief to this Court & along therewith, provide notice to the Court that its breach of duty in not providing such relief as RJM has explained it is necessary be provided under the circumstances, would be alleged to be the proximate cause of the loss of RJM’s claim re. Judge Hand’s B < L x P formula, leaving RJM claiming that both the individual Judges & the U.S. would be jointly liable, along with the tortfeasors already liable for damages previously caused, for the damages caused in that scenario.
37. Finally, in as much as issues not raised, or in regard to which timely, substantiated objections are not posited, are waived or relinquished for further appeal, RJM has been left no choice regarding the last paragraph of the Order of 8/23/02, except to address the issues raised therein, in order that he preserve all claims indefinitely into the future.
38. Once again, RJM, in that Order, has encountered that frivolous claim in regard to issues RJM understood he had no choice but to raise to the Court in order to preserve them for future resolution, in a context in which no person could possibly accurately identify the justification for its use.
39. RJM has a duty to everyone to whom he owes duties of care, to get this case resolved upon its merits, & it will never be resolved upon any other basis. Until it is resolved on the protective side of the protective/predatory fault line, it will not be resolved at all.
40. RJM does not even address this motion to this Court. On the contrary it is directly addressed to those to whom RJM owes duties of care outside this Court, & only incidentally & indirectly to this Court.
41. In other words, RJM is not dependent in any way upon this Court’s rendering a just decision in this case, & his objective is not to win the case in this Court, but to preserve the claim through whatever proceedings are conducted in this Court.
42. The cases cited in the final paragraph of that Order of 8/23/02 are so dissimilar to this case as to be entirely distinguishable from this case. In every one of the cases cited, there is some element of evident bad faith present, or at least the opinions indicate such. In this case, there is nothing but respect for the legitimate exercise of authority & the principle of The Rule of Law, & Reverence for its Author, even if the carnal resentment RJM cannot help but experience at the difficulty of protecting & restoring it, is not altogether sublimated into constructive purposes[,] as it should be.
43. RJM is claiming that if even one pivotal decision-maker, whose decision(s) have left this case in the condition it is presently in had required him (her)self to conduct his (her) activity according to the requirements of the moral law, that this case would have been resolved on the protective side of the predatory/protective fault line long ago.
44. RJM has an obligation to conduct his activity such that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is not left in a worse condition than that in which he found it, & he will implement measures as is evidently necessary & appropriate to accomplish such objective. The burden on a party claiming frivolousness in regard to a document, is upon such party to identify with sufficiently particular[ized] specificity, just what it is that renders a document frivolous.
45. Otherwise, there will be no end to the production of such claim, & no defense from it
46. Una vez mas, - no human court is a final tribunal for RJM, & no decision is final just because some human judge claims it is. It is far worse to be shamefully enslaved than honorably dead, & no litigant that would accept a decision classifying his positions as frivolous & prohibiting him from accessing a court to obtain any relief at any time needed, could possibly be considered a free man.
47. If future activity of this Court is kept within acceptable bounds, this Petition can get resolved acceptably, & if such activity exceeds such limits, RJM will have no choice but to go to even more trouble & expense to reign it in &/or curb it where necessary.
48. Thus, even if this Court grants all of the relief sought in this motion, RJM will still have to file one more motion along with his briefs, so as to ensure that he has adequately stated his case in order to preserve & protect all of his claims from any adversity which might befall them in this Court.
49. How niggardly, base, ignoble & just plain despicable RJM would indisputably be if he would permit the type of threat contained in the last paragraph of the Order of 8/23/02 to prevent him from fulfilling his duties, after so many have shed their last drop of blood so that others such as RJM could be in a position that RJM is now in, from which RJM can add to the legacy of those who sacrificed everything for the sake of The Rule of Law.
50. There would be no point in litigating this case at all, if it is not litigated according to acceptable standards & principles.
Wherefore, RJM petitions this Court to either 1.) grant RJM permission to file both of his briefs under seal, or 2.) to issue an order estopping the Respondent from modifying any position it has taken in its defense of this case, 3.) to provide RJM notice that it will render all the relief the statute is supposed to provide to whistleblowers such as RJM, from this Court, without any remand being implemented, or if the Court will not provide one of these forms of relief , to provide notice that RJM will file a motion containing a complete assessment of the Baxter case, explaining why his briefs ought to be filed under seal, based upon the arguments made in that opinion. Respectfully submitted,Robert J. More312 455-8385
United
States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit
Robert J More
Plaintiff-appellant
v
Petition for Review of
No. 01-3224 Dept. of Labor
U.S. Dept. Of Labor No. 01-044
Defendant(s)-appellees
Notice of Filing
Notice is herein provided to
the defendants’ counsel, Ms. L Chaves of
the U.S.D.O.L. that on or before
8/30/02 the Petitioner filed with the clerk’s office
of the U.S. Appellate Court at 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago IL the
following documents:
Petitioner ("RJM"'s) Verified Motion of 8/30/02, in Which He Provides Notice to this Court of What He Intends to Do in Regard to the Continued Prosecution of This Petition
Respectfully submitted,
Robert More
I hereby certify, under
penalty of perjury, that a copy of
each instrument enumerated in the Notice
of Filing, contained supra has been served upon all parties who have
appeared and have not previously been found by the Court to be in default for
failure to plead. Service was accomplished on or before 9/3/02 before midnite,
via mailing first classs postage prepaid to
Ms. L.Chaves
Attorney
U.S.Dept. of Labor
200 Constitutional Ave. N.W.
Room S-4004
Washington, D.C. 20210
Robert J. More
2008 S. Blue Island #39
Chicago, IL, 60608
3124558385
.