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.



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


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

P.O. Box 6926, 

Chicago, IL 60680, 312 545-1890