Make your own free website on Tripod.com

jn21-15protctr.tripod.com/grifdlmartmadalvetalcrim021618in.html
Document List for Initial Component of 021618 of Submission to Federal Grand Jury or the Closest Similitude Whereof of 021618 - D/L Grifmart crim 021618

1. D/L Grifmart crim 020618 X

2. Notice and Demand to FGJ Foreperson for USDC for ND of IL, Chief Judge of USDC for ND of IL, U.S. Attorney for ND of IL, USMS for ND of IL of 021618 X

3. Disclaimers
5. Distribution List
6. Author Contact Information
7. Record of Time and Resources Consumed in Completion of Project this Entry Concerns
8. Errata to D/L Grifmart crim 020618

9. Proposed True Bill of 021618 in re Grifmart Crim X

10. First Superseding Component of ...Notice and Demand to FGJ Foreperson for USDC for ND of IL, Chief Judge of USDC for ND of IL, U.S. Attorney for ND of IL, USMS for ND of IL of 021618

11. Reverse Martial Law Formula

12. Complaints Against ISMA Member Priorities and/or Activity

13. Record of Time and Resources Consumed/Expended in Completion of phase of project this collection of documents concerns w or w/o attribution of financial
responsibility wherefore X

14. Report in re Grifmart crim and grif

15. Notice to those not receiving the entirety of the documents delivered to the FGJ or similitude whereof on 021618


Document List Concerns Entries in the list included herein supra adjacent to which there is
an "X" were transmitted to All of those included in the Distribution
List produced for this collection of documents on or before 021618
and received whenever whereafter.

Doc. # 15 from D/L of 021618

Notice to those not receiving the entirety of the documents delivered to the FGJ or similitude whereof on 021618

Those not receiving the entirety of the documents delivered to the FGJ or similitude whereof on 021618 regarding the matters this document concerns can access such documents at the URL listed in the ULC of this document and/or by contacting Robert J. More with the contact information provided herein .

/s/Robert J. More



Document # 2 from D/L Grifmart crim 021618

Notice and Demand to FGJ Foreperson for USDC for ND of IL, Chief Judge of USDC for ND of IL, U.S. Attorney for ND of IL, USMS for ND of IL of 021618

Robert J. More ("RJM")

P.O. Box 6926, Chicago, IL 60680, anselm45@gmail.com, 708 317-8812, (863) 688-9880 lvmsg



Federal Grand Jury Foreperson

Federal Grand Jury for the United States District Court, Northern District of IL

13th or 16th or some other Floor, Federal Building, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL, 60680



Chief Judge of United States District Court for the Northern District of IL USDC-NDIL, R. Castillo

Chambers of the Chief Judge of the USDC-NDIL, Federal Building, 219 S. Dearborn St.,

Chicago, IL, 60680



United States Marshal Service

Suite 2400, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL, 60604



Office of the United State's Attorney for the Northen District of IL

Suite 500, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, IL, 60604



Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representative of the U.S. Congress

Office Building, Washington, DC - via email



Inspector General - USDOJ

United States Senator for Kentucky, Rand Paul - via email



FEMA Red and Blue Listers, Children Under the Age of Reason, Whatever Posterity Providence would Permit and Anyone Interested in the Matters Concerned, in General - via posting to website whose URL is included herein



021618

Dear Federal Grand Jury Foreperson ("FGJ"), and Undear Chief Judge of the USDC-NDI, R. Castillo ("Chief Judge") and Whatever Member(s) of the USMS (is) (are) responsible for the maintenance of the arrangement presently prevailing in the geographical area constituting the "Northern District of IL" ("NDIL") for purpose(s) of the delineation of the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in regard to such area, in which citizens are prevented via the notification from the USMS of intent of the USMS to endeavor to effect arrest in regard to any initiative(s) undertaken to present evidence of alleged and/or actual violations of provisions of the United States Code and/or the Constitution of the u.s. of A. in which is contained provision for criminal prosecution and punishment by any activity conductor not listed by role and/or title in the Order issued by the Chief Judge referencing the entirety of types of activity conductors permitted to access the FGJ in the NDIL, which is dated March 26, 2007 ("Order of 3/26/07 re Access to FGJ"), if the policy most recently in operation in regard to this matter is what it was, the last time RJM endeavored to present evidence to the FGJ in Chicago, IL, and Office of the United State's Attorney for the Northern District of IL, and Asst. U.S. Attorney Thomas Walsh,

It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:31). God can never permit anyone to be tempted beyond his strength but must always find a way for anyone afflicted to "make issue" with it (ie. - to find his way through any given adversity w/o incurring culpability for any sin in the progression wherethrough). (1 Cor. 10:13). For those who have shown mercy need have no fear or judgment (Ja. 2:13). Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good! (Rom. 12:21).



The entirety of the communications transmitted to those whose identifiers have been included herein supra transmitted in the past regarding endeavors to provide evidence of the commission of federal crimes in the ND of IL to any Federal Grand Jury empanelled wherein and to procure indictments in re whereto are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein, according to a formula which would result in no prejudice to any legitimate reliance interest from the non-verbatim inclusion herein. RJM can be contacted to provide explanations, references to authorities, evidence and whatever else would be necessary to vindicate the legtimate reliance interests this document concerns. Superseding components of this docoment will only be delivered if the delivery of this one does not result in the issuance of indictments regarding the matters concerned. This document and many other documents related to the reliance interest of the members of the general population and posterity in the adequate punishment of federal crimes can be accessed at the URL included in the ULC of this document and the other site referenced at the page such URL regulates.

Accompanying this document is a "Proposed True Bill of 021618" whose contents include, according to RJM's informed understanding of the thresholds concerned, the minimum necessary factual averments to get criminal charges instituted against CCCC, IL Judge Leroy Martin and others referenced wherein without delay. This material does not include the entirety of the crimes perpetrated by Martin regarding the matters concerned, nor the plethora of crimes perpetrated by various other nominal government officials which are related to the matters concerned. Future versions of this document will provide evidence regarding such matters. The formula according to which this document has been produced and delivered, Providence permitting, on 021618 will be provided in future superseding versions whereof, to the extent the provision whereof could evidently be justified in any given instance. As, inter alia, there are many burdens other than the completion of the project this document concerns ("this project") to which RJM understands that he is obliged to continue to attend in order to ensure the adequate coverage of his moral liability as subjectively apprehended and it is the case that those whose malefactions are responsible for RJM having to now attend to the completion of this project must be required to cover RJM's demonstrable, evident eternal opportunity cost ("EEOC") in attending whereto, it goes without saying, but bears repeating here that "EEOC assessments" can only be levied regarding activity which would have been demonstrated to have been indispensably necessary in order to complete a given, in this case, this project, and not regarding activity which would not have been provably necessary in such regard. Thus, this project is being completed with such concern in mind. The concern to provide others victimized by predation perpetrations similar to those this project concerns explanations regarding formulas used and left unused in re to the rectification whereof, in any given instance, can be covered via means other than the provision of formulas in this collection of documents.

The focus of this project is the source of detriment of the use of coerced psychotropic drugging in violation of moral and nominal legal prohibitions whereupon, and the need for the punishment of the federal crimes perpetrated by Judge Leroy Martin, given his being in a position to do evidently more damage to legitimate reliance interests at this juncture, via his capacity, inter alia, to orchestrate coerced illegal psychotropic drugging of and/or otherwise permanent disability causing injuries to innocent persons than are any of the other of the plethora of malefaction-perpetrators this document concerns. The component of this project this document and its related documents concerns has been completed in order to ensure that the claim to resort to the use of contra-predatory vigilantism for purpose of the rectification of the injustices it concerns, which ended up in existence upon the completion of the perpetration of the individual malefactions concerned, respectively, will have been retained regardless of what transpires in regard to any nominal government activity conducted in re whereto.

On Behalf of Everything Contra-neo-nazi, but Obviously, not by Any Express Designation in re whereto,

/s/Robert J. More - Rom. 12:18-21, Jn. 2:16, MC Cl 61, "Throw Off..." and "Alter or Abolish" Clauses of the DOI, RTP and Amendment #2 of Constitution of the u.s. of A., Divini Redemptoris/Papal Christmas Message of 1956 021618



Document # 9. from D/L Grifmart crim 021618

Proposed True Bill of 021618 in re Grifmart Crim


United States District Court for the Northern District of IL - Doc.


United States of America


v


Leroy Martin


INDICTMENT


THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:


INTRODUCTION


At all times material to the Indictment:


1. Each of the Defendants referenced in the caption of this document was employed by either the State of IL, 2. At such juncture,


a.) Leroy Martin was conducting activity ("WCA") as a Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL ("CCCC").


- all within the scope and meaning of 18 USC 241 and 242.


2. The State of IL is a state government entity, and the County of Cook County, IL is a political subdivision of the State of IL within the scope and meaning of 18 USC 242 and 241.


Note #1: The entirety of the Complaint filed in the CCCC has been posted in the URL included in the ULC of the collection of documents of which this document constitutes a component part.


Note #2. It is RJM's informed understanding that all that is needed in order to get criminal process issued in regard to the matters this document concerns is the presentation of evidence in regard to the specific violations of Federal Criminal Laws ("FCL") that would cause men of ordinary prudence to conclude that a crime had been committed" (citation to authority yet to be added) in regard to the evidence included in any submission for the issuance of criminal process in the form of an indictment and/or information, and RJM is entirely convinced that the evidence included herein easily traverses that threshold (ie. "probable cause") and could explain the basis for such conviction if any demand and/or proposal would be made upon RJM to provide any such type explanation and/or provide documentation in support of any such type explanation


Note #3. The inclusion in a given legal document of material that could ever legitimately be claimed to constitute "surplussage" can never legitimately constitute a basis for the disregard of any material ever contained in any given document which would not ever be legitimately considered to constitute such, and thus the inclusion of any conclusions, legal conclusions, opinions, adjectival phrases and/or rhetorical devices not indispensably necessary in a given instance to effect a given legitimate end can never legtimately be utilized to disregard any and all legally competent and admissible evidence in the form of averments and/or otherwise, which would ever be utilized in order to effect any legitimate end.


Note #4. RJM herein informs those to whom this document has been addressed ("addressees") that RJM remains available to testify in regard to any and all of the matters referenced in this document and that he is proceeding as expeditiously as he can continue to proceed in regard to the matter of providing the transcripts of the CCDC to each and all of such addressees as soon as such objective can be accomplished.


Note #5. The form in which this document has been presented has been produced off of a template derived in regard to the issuance of a "True Bill" in Case # 07-872 in the USDC for the District of New Mexico in all respects which RJM understood it was necessary to ensure the accomplishment of procedural compliance in re whereto, in regard to which RJM has been capable of accomplishing such compliance.


Note #12. All factual averments included in the Complaint filed in Case # 10 CH 26622 are referenced herein as having been so included under penalty of perjury pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1746 - Robert J. More, 12/17/15


IV. Barest minimum of factual predicates necessary to sustain claims concerned until all Defendants answer complaint and/or otherwise enter a plea:


1. In the Spring of 2011, RJM filed a Complaint in Case # 11 CH 12339 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL, seeking to vindicate a plethora of legitimate reliance interest defradments constituting crimes and torts stemming from an illegal seizure of RJM in June of 2008 by the Sgt Griffith et al of the CCSD. What follows is an enumeration of the factual predicates which RJM succeeded in recalling and/or finding, recently, describing what transpired in the adjudication of such case, in regard to which no evidence that could possibly be considered in RJM's understanding to constitute any type of basis for exculpation from criminal liablity has been excluded wherefrom, which in RJM's informed understanding constitute violations of 18 USC 242, and in some cases 1346, 1961 et seq. and possibly 241 ("EFP"):

1. RJM filed a motion in the 2nd quarter of 2011 in this case seeking a stay of proceedings in this case until convictions pursuant to the provisions of 18 USC 242 in regard to all of the counts involving constitutional torts actionable via 42 USC 1983 could be procured , so that the Defendants concerned ("D's") could be collaterally estopped from defending the civil charges on liability, which Judge L. Martin ("Martin" or "Court") refused to provide any adjudication of in evident violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


4. RJM filed a motion set for 6/9/11 in this case seeking Appointment of a Special Prosecutor in re criminal liability RJM understood to be present in re the civil counts included in the complaint then pending and later to be superseded wherein according to the provisions of entry # 2 in "RJM's Proposed Order of 6/9/11," according to a formula structured such that RJM would not risk losing his Substitution of Judge Martin as of Right, Right, as explicated in that entry, via the submission of such motion, but Martin arrogated the authority to himself to disregard the plain language of that entry and deny the petition for such appointment, notwithstanding that such petition had not been presented to him in any way in which he could reasonably understand that he could execute such act(s), in evident violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


5. Martin denied such petition for the Appt of a Special Prosecutor in a situation in which the Government Prosecutor was also the Defense Attorney in the civil case this document concerns, defending on a civil basis the same activity and persons in regard to which RJM was seeking to have criminal charges instituted, never explaining how so obvious a conflict of interest could leave any adjudicator of such type petition with any choice except to grant such petition, in evident violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


6. In October of 2011, as RJM recalls the date, Martin procured and/or extorted the dismissal of the judges included as D's in this case w/ prejudice, and as RJM recalls, court reporters, w/o prejudice, which constituted a de facto retraction of the challenges to judicial immunity the complaint contained, which challenge to such cancer was one of the most important components of this case, via informing Attorney, A. Galic, who was then representing RJM that Galic would be subject to sanctions if the judges so named were not dismissed/judicial immunity challenges retracted (which dismissal was sprung in an audience in which RJM had both laryngitus and lacked any paper while standing before the bench next to Galic), never explaining how any given arrangement ever present in the development of the law in any given area could ever be modified, extended or reversed, according to the language of the rule promulgated for IL Courts in regard to the modification, extension or reversal of any given arrangment of law(s), if the advocate for such type development, respectively, in any given instance would have to incur sanctions in order to effect any such type development, other than in a scenario in which one sufficiently wealthy such that the prospect of the incurrment of a sanction in any given instance would not leave in place a disincentive to the seeking of any such type development of the law sufficient to deter the petitioning wherefore, in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


7. Martin never explained how how the Defendant in the trial court case from which Bradley v Fis(c)her emanated could have petitioned for the institution of judicial immunity when it did not exist in the u.s. of A. before this case was decided, if such petitioning for modification... would have subjected him to sanctions for doing so.


8. Martin never provided any ruling on RJM's motion of Nov. of 2011 for 2/2/12, for the reinstitution of the judges and court reporters dismissed on or about 10/5/15 in this case in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


9. Martin refused to provide RJM an order enabling RJM to bring a scanner into R. Daley Center and use it in order to scan the entirety of the documents constituting the court case file in the criminal case from which this case emanated - claiming he lacked authority to order the Clerk to provide such consideration - the permission to scan documents w/ one's own scanner.


10. Martin never provided any ruling on the Motion which it is RJM's best recollection RJM filed seeking to have the D's counsel, Groah and Conway, respectively, to either show cause that they ought not be held in contempt of Court or to be held in contempt whereof for falsely accusing RJM of not filing an Amended Complaint as detailed in the submissions submitted to this Court in May of 2015, in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


11. Martin never provided any ruling on the Motion which it is RJM's best recollection RJM filed seeking to have the D's counsel, Groah and Conway, respectively, to either show cause that they ought not be held in contempt of Court or to be held in contempt whereof for falsely accusing RJM of not filing an Amended Complaint as detailed in the submissions submitted to this Court in May of 2015, in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


12. Martin never provided any rulings in regard to the contents of motions filed in the 2nd half of 2012, by RJM in which RJM was endeavoring to ensure the adequate preservation of issues regarding the standard and method of the adjudication of this case conducted by Martin, except to summarily deny them without ever addressing the specific particulars regarding any of the relief ever sought in any given such motion, notwithstanding the Webb v Webb (__U.S._) burden by which litigants are burdened to get all issues of a federal constitutional dimension adequately pressed and passed upon in any trial proceedings conducted in any given case at the cost of relinquishing any claim to the addressing whereof by reviewing courts for not accomplishing such objective, which such non-provision of rulings was in RJM's understanding in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


13. Martin issued an order in 2013 if RJM's memory serves him right as to the exact juncture of the issuance of the order imposing sanctions upon RJM in which he levied a fine upon RJM w/o any justification whatsoever and in regard to which RJM could not and cannot see any motivation other than to attempt to intimidate RJM out of his continuing to fight to eliminate the innumerable cancers, evils and sources of hazard and harm to legitimate reliance interests which plague the Courts and other government entities conducting activity in the CCCC, IL, and to otherwise for what to a measure of moral certainty can be identified to constitute justice in regard to the matters this case concerns, in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


13. Martin issued an order in 2013 if RJM's memory serves him right as to the exact juncture of the issuance of the order imposing sanctions upon RJM in which was included an edict prohibiting the Clerk of the CCCC, IL from accepting documents from RJM after previously claiming that he lacked the authority to order such Clerk to execute any affirmative act/control the activity of Clerk in regard to RJM's petitioning the Court regarding use of the scanner referenced herein supra, in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


14. Martin ordinarily and customarily terminated court proceedings in this case before RJM was finished speaking/never inquired whether in any given audience, RJM had completed any given presentation or attempted presentation of issues in re whereto before terminating any given audience, the effect of which was to render RJM incapable of adequately bearing the Webb v Webb burden referenced herein supra, except to the extent Martin's activity in this regard constructively dispensed RJM wherefrom, in violation of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


15. According to the CCSD Courtroom Deputy for room 2008 of the RDC, whose name RJM cannot recall (45 year old gray haired, small female), Martin ordered her at a certain juncture to prohibit RJM from using a computer in Courtroom 2008, which may or may not constitute a violation of 720 ICS 5/33-3.


16. Martin's order of 11/9/12 ("order") in RJM's understanding, constitutes a constructive endorsement of each and all of the crimes, malefactions and torts referenced in the counts included in the "Amended Complaint of 2/13/12" ("AC"), and otherwise constitutes a ratification whereof, which in RJM's understanding makes him an aider and abettor in re whereto in matters no less serious than that of the coerced psychotropic drugging of a criminal defendant found to be entirely innocent via a directed verdict against the CCSA Prosecutor in the criminal case from which this case arose which it is RJM's informed understanding cannot not constitute a violation of 18 USC 242.


17. In the order, Martin never even addressed any of the counts included in the AC to the extent RJM could succeed in getting factual predicates and counts into the AC by 2/13/12, other than the ones referencing the first 3 torts and crimes perpetrated on 6/13/08 in re these matters, notwithstanding that there are innumerable entirely legitimate claims referenced wherein, whose legitimacy has not even been addressed in any analysis less of a broad-brush, under the rug sweeping than the order indisputably is, which span the period of 6/13/08 thru 12/17/08, in regard to which non-provision of either a demand for a more definite statement or an addressing of each and every count included in such AC constitutes a number of violations of 18 USC 242.


18. In the order, Martin never even addressed any of the counts included in the AC to the extent RJM could succeed in getting factual predicates and counts into the AC by 2/13/12, other than the ones referencing the first 3 torts and crimes perpetrated on 6/13/08 in re these matters, notwithstanding that there are innumerable entirely legitimate claims referenced wherein, whose legitimacy has not even been addressed in any analysis less of a broad-brush, under the rug sweeping than the order indisputably is, which span the period of 6/13/08 thru 12/17/08, in regard to which non-provision of either a demand for a more definite statement or an addressing of each and every count included in such AC constitutes a number of violations of 18 USC 242.


19. In the order, Martin never even addressed the count included in the AC which asserted a claim against to the extent RJM could succeed in getting factual predicates and counts into the AC by 2/13/12, other than the ones referencing the first 3 torts and crimes perpetrated on 6/13/08 in re these matters, notwithstanding that there are innumerable entirely legitimate claims referenced wherein, whose legitimacy has not even been addressed in any analysis less of a broad-brush, under the rug sweeping than the order indisputably is, which span the period of 6/13/08 thru 12/17/08, in regard to which non-provision of either a demand for a more definite statement or an addressing of each and every count included in such AC constitutes a number of violations of the provisions of 18 USC 242.


20. In the order, Martin never even addressed the contents of entry #89 in the AC, describing Judge T. Donnelly's ("JTMD") holding RJM in contempt (which was prepared as a charge in RJM's criminal trial, separate from the charge of trespass this case concerned) for filing an amicus petition in a separate case, which he later dismissed on his own cognizance that such filing was entirely legal, which disregard without even the permitting of any challenge to the constitutionality of any invocation of any immunity defense which might have been presented in re whereto, in order, at the very least, to ensure the preservation of the issue for review, it is RJM's understanding constitutes a violations of the provisions of 18 USC 242, as there is most definitely a constitutionally protected right not to be subject to any type of contempt of court, or criminal charge absent their being a legitimate basis for the institution wherein in any given instance and every instance in which any such type charges would be instituted.


21. In the order, Martin never even addressed the contents of the entries included in the AC which address JTMD's revocation of RJM's criminal bond which was later conceded by him to have been unjustified, which resulted in RJM's ending up in the Cook County Jail and getting coercedly psychotropically drugged, which disregard without even the permitting of any challenge to the constitutionality of any invocation of any immunity defense which might have been presented in re whereto, in order, at the very least, to ensure the preservation of the issue for review, it is RJM's understanding constitutes a violations of the provisions of 18 USC 242, as there is most definitely a constitutionally protected right not to have one's bond revoked without just cause.


22. In the order, Martin never even addressed the contents of the entries included in the AC which address the denial of RJM of his constitutionally protected right to file a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 2241 in regard to his detention in the Cook County Jail, which, it is RJM's understanding constitutes a violations of the provisions of 18 USC 242, as there is most definitely a constitutionally protected right to file pre-trial detainee habeas corpus petition.




17a. blatant disregard of msoj to preserve soj of right i=issues ruling denying appt of special prosecutor in arrangement in which motion wherefore had not been presented to him in case in which conditions explicated in motion were not present, such that Martin lacked authority to issue any denial of any type -depriving RJM of 9th Amendment right as well as substantive due process of 14th amendment, not to mention




18a. defraudments of legitimate reliance interests - rules on appt of special prosecutor in June of 2011 in arrangement in which petition was not submitted to him to rule whereupon except conditionally upon protection of MS OJ as of Right


19a. P's Motion of 10/19/12 for 10/18/12 - to add U.S.D.C for NDIL Chief judge, USMS to amended complaint for deprivation of access to FGJ,


20a. Standard and method of adjudication -motions throughout sept and oct of 2012 - Luciferian instigated flight from RJM's endeavor to superimpose structure around and upon proceedings sufficient to prevent Judicial hydroplaning (...) of the type which constitutes the ordinary and customary S & M of adjudication in Courts of the CCCC, IL, but all Courts conducting activity in Cook County, Il in regard to the activity of which RJM is cognizant.




"and so that RJM can get any and all issues still not adequately resolved re Standard & Method of Ajudication Secured Adequately So as to Have Indemnification of Such Against Any Legitmate Claim of Culpable Negligence re the Non-adequate Presentation Whereof & for Other and Furher Relief, Dependent & Independent of Response/Non-response to Document Presented to CCSD and CCAS on 10/9/12 ....j


21.a mistatement of postulation - Court claims that Plaintiff's ("P") allege that "...his case had been dismissed because he (RJM) had failed to appear for the hearing..that day, when in fact there is no such allegation to be found anywhere in the "...Amended Complaint of 2/13/12...."


22a.Court claims that P's own allegations are that upon being repeatedly directed by Sheriff's personnel to leave the Courtroom, Mr. More refused to leave, when in fact the AC contains no such allegations but rather asserts to the contrary that "...RJM informed all concerned that RJM would leave the 2408 as soon as RJM received a confirmation that either the Court had ordered RJM to leave, that the courtroom was closed for the morning or that RJM would be arrested if RJM refused to leave without either of the types of confirmations referenced herein supra.


39. No such type confirmation was provided.


40. Bergfalk and Griffith both addressed RJM.


41. RJM again explained that all RJM understood that RJM needed to procure in order to possess the authority to leave 2408 at what was then very shortly after 11:00 a.m. was the type of confirmation described herein supra, emphasizing that RJM would leave without delay if the consequences of RJM's not leaving would be that RJM would be arrested for not leaving immediately."; after which RJM explains the function of the formula RJM had used in this matter, which of course the Court conveniently omitted to include in its conspicuously selective presentation of the alleged allegations of the AC, -all in violation of 18 USC 242.


23. Contrary to Court's complaint about difficulty of ascertaining the number of D's named in the AC, such number could have been ascertained via a simple counting of the named D's and adding the Doe D's referenced as Does wherein to such number.


24. On page 3 of the Order, the Court claims that "More filed his amended complaint without filing a motion to vacate ...the Dismissal Order (in re the Judicial and Court Reporter Defendants) which claim constituted the basis for the Court's granting dismissal against the Court Reporters, when in fact it is the case that RJM filed a motion on 10/28/11 set for 2/2/12 to "Reconsider Order of 10/5/11 *, ...reinstate all D's dismissed in this case....". * In the proceeding in which the Court extorted the dismissal of the Judges and Court Reporters via the notification of his intent to sanction Galic,were Galic to not dismiss such individuals, respectively, RJM was incapable of speaking attributable to laryngitis and lacked any paper while standing adjacent to Attorney Galic at the bench with which to compose any note of objection to Galic's capitulation to Martin's extortionistic ploy.


25. Contrary to the Court's claim that RJM has used "...this forum as a bully pulpit...unrelated...action.", in fact RJM has found it necessary to include material in the AC for the purpose of protecting the theatre from the endeavor to keep the ubiquitous yellow smiley face facade which is encountered by citizens every hour of every day in Cook County, IL, off of the skull and cross bones, Jn. 3:19, Eph. 5:8, Jn 8:44, activity which constitutes the ordinary and customary character of Cook County, IL and State of IL activity.


26. The Court claims that there are "rules prohibiting it [the use of tape recording devices]" in CCCC, IL Courtrooms, when in fact RJM informed the Court way back in June, or at the latest July of 2011 that it was RJM's understanding that the SCOTUS opinion in Murdock v PA ("_U.S._) squarely foreclosed the use of any such rule in the postulation that "No state may take a secured right and reduce it to a privilege and require the issuance of a license for the exercise whereof." (in which construction the SCOTUS obviously intended to use the term "procurement" in the place of "issuance"), which is exactly what the restriction of the use of ERD's in Courtrooms in CCCC, IL to licensed stenographers was effecting, to which notification, the Court responded that stenographer's reports were necessary because such could be certified, as if certification could add anything to the accuracy of a record of proceedings which any uncertified record could not provide, and as if, participants could not verify the contents of any proceeding via verifications under penalty of perjury of their own, of the contents whereof in any given instance.


27. True to form, besides blatantly and flagrantly disregarding such controlling authority in Murdock, the Court further disregarded the Opinion issued in May of 2012, in ACLU v Alvarez, by the CCA 7, (which was never overturned by the SCOTUS and of course could not have been without the overturning of Murdock) declaring the "probable unconstitutionality of the eavesdropping statute then applicable in IL"in opining that there was a constitutionally protected right to produce electronic recordings of activity conducted by public officials conducting activity in public theatres" which is a paraphrase of whatever constitued the exact wording of such principle in that opinion.


28. That the prohibition of the use of ERD's in courtrooms in IL Court proceedings could not be prohibited was confirmed in March of 2013 by the IL Supreme Court in the case People v Clark (_ _IL. R. 3_), in which that Court acknowledged the existence of a right to gather information.


29. The applicability of the rule of constitutional law referenced herein in Murdock to the recording of activity conducted in this case was and is, uncontestable. Even beyond this fact, according to the SCOTUS opinion in Pearson v Callahan (__U.S._), issued in 2009, the scope and contours of a constitutionally protected right not addressed exactly by the SCOTUS at any given juncture is determined by the Jurisprudence of the highest Federal Court of Appeals for a given area and/or the Highest Court for a given State, and RJM cannot see how Martin's prohibition of RJM's using an ERD in the proceedings conducted in this case did not constitute another violation of 18 USC 242, both in itself and as a component part of Martin's obvious agenda and scheme to deprive RJM and everyone entitled to consideration from RJM of the consideration which the use of an ERD would have provided - namely the making of the construction of facade of legitimacy which Martin understood could be kept over the criminal character of his adjudication, upon proceedings which were entirely lacking legitimacy, incomparably less difficult than it would have been had there been an ERD recording all that transpired in such adjudication.


30. The Court's characterization of RJM's purpose in filing various motions as can be ascertained in any substantial consideration whereof to have constituted in actuality an ongoing endeavor of RJM to superimpose adequate structure into the adjudication to compensate for the structural defect (what Solzenhitsyn referenced as the "tilt towards evil") by which the CCCC, IL is plagued so that the adjudication of this case would not constitute simply another miscarriage of justice of the type which ordinarily results in the cases adjudicated in the Courts of Cook County, IL with which RJM has been familiar, at this juncture as being to "harass... stave off..." is indicative of the criminal character of the intent of the Court in endeavoring to keep its obvious intent to defraud the public of the intangible right to the honest services of the exercise of the authority of a judicial office in its adjudication of this case suppressed and concealed.


31. The conspicuous superficiality of the references to the cancer of the various immunities referenced in the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 of the Order will have to be addressed in future versions of this document and/or others, but RJM is convinced that all of such provide more evidence of the intent of the Court to defraud the public of its right to have such claimed immunities challenged, which claim is supported by the absence of any reference to any of the SCOTUS opinions in regard to such issues, any reference to any authorities such as the treatment of the civil liability of judges in the Moral Theology in Four Volumes, authored by Henry Davis, S.J. in which such liability is acknowledged and/or even a single reference to the arrangement which prevailed at common law in such regard, not to mention the contents of Magna Charta Clause 61, which affirms that not even the King of England was immune from liability for any wrongs which might ever be perpetrated by him.


32. The Court dismissed Count I of the AC (bottom of p.6 and top of p.7 of Order) against County D's w/o identifying any element(s) of the false arrest/false imprisonment count which was lacking in the AC, notwithstanding that the definition of such torts was presented in entry # 153 wherein and that the contents of entries # 154-159, wherein demonstrate how the activity this count concerns covers all of the elements of such definition, in violation of 18 USC 242.


33. The Court dismissed Count II (bottom of p.6 and top of p.7 of Order) against CCSD Koppe w/o identifying any element(s) of the tort of battery which was lacking in the AC, notwithstanding that the definition of such torts was presented in entry # 163, wherein and that the contents of entries # 29-32, wherein demonstrate how the activity this count concerns covers all of the elements of such definition, in violation of 18 USC 242.


34. The Court dismissed Count II (bottom of p.6 and top of p.7 of Order) against CCSD Koppe w/o identifying any element(s) of the tort of Illegal Seizure in Violation of the Amendment #4 Prohibition of Illegal Seizures which was lacking in the AC, notwithstanding that the identification of the elements of such constitutional tort was presented in entry # 166, wherein and that the contents of entries # 29-32, wherein demonstrate how the activity this count concerns covers all of the elements of such tort as defined at the juncture at which such tort was perpetrated, in violation of 18 USC 242.


35. The Court dismissed the State Claims included in Counts I and II (bottom of p.6 and top of p.7 of Order) against Cook County, IL D's on the basis that they were barred by a one year statute of limitations ("SOL") notwithstanding that it was clearly informed in the AC that the complaint filed in this case was a refiling of a case filed in 2009, namely in this clause: "...County and State Officials and Entities whom this complaint and the one originally filed in 09 CH 18934 concerns..," which the accessing of the docket in re whereto would have demonstrated was filed prior to any expiration of any SOL applicable to these matters, in violation of 18 USC 242.


36. The Court dismissed the Constitutional Claims included in Counts I and II (bottom of p.6 and top of p.7 of Order) against Cook County, IL D's on the basis that they were barred by a two year statute of limitations ("SOL") notwithstanding that it was clearly informed in the AC that the complaint filed in this case was a refiling of a case filed in 2009, namely in this clause: "...County and State Officials and Entities whom this complaint and the one originally filed in 09 CH 18934 concerns..," which the accessing of the docket in re whereto would have demonstrated was filed prior to any expiration of any SOL applicable to these matters, in violation of 18 USC 242.


37. According to the Court, Asst. Cook County State's Attorney, P. Groah argued "that ... More's state claims are barred..." according to the claim included in entry # 35 herein supra, in violation of 18 USC 242, which accusation can be checked via checking the contents of the "Motion to Dismiss" filed by Groah in 2012 in this case which is accessible in the Clerk's docket maintained for this case, and in regard to such matter, RJM would understand that both CCSA Alarez and Asst. CCSA P. Driscoll would have to be prosecuted for such violation of 18 USC 242, as the Office of the CCSA refused to either stipulate to vicarious liability when RJM demanded such stipulation or to provide some justification for such refusal and it is axiomatic that authority can be delegated but responsibility cannot be and the defense of this case and so much other activity of the CCSA over the years has demonstrated that the priorities according to which the activity of such Office is ordinarily and customarily conducted induce the commission of violations of 18 USC 242 continually.


38. According to the Court, Asst. Cook County State's Attorney, P. Groah argued "that ... More's constitutional claims are barred..." according to the claim included in entry # 36 herein supra, in violation of 18 USC 242, which accusation can be checked via checking the contents of the "Motion to Dismiss" filed by Groah in 2012 in this case which is accessible in the Clerk's docket maintained for this case, and in regard to such matter, RJM would understand that both CCSA Alarez and Asst. CCSA P. Driscoll would have to be prosecuted for such violation of 18 USC 242, as the Office of the CCSA refused to either stipulate to vicarious liability when RJM demanded such stipulation or to provide some justification for such refusal and it is axiomatic that authority can be delegated but responsibility cannot be and the defense of this case and so much other activity of the CCSA over the years has demonstrated that the priorities according to which the activity of such Office is ordinarily and customarily conducted induce the commission of violations of 18 USC 242 continually.


39. The calumnies directed at RJM by the Court in regard to the "vexatious litigant" smear ( a smear entirely incompatible with rulings and expressions of opinion of various measures implemented by RJM by, among others, a number of judges) will be addressed in documents other than this one, but the Court's admission of a "jaundiced eye" is indeed a most appropriate one as RJM continues to demonstrate herein.


40. Time constraints being what they are in regard to the burden of completing this document at this juncture, RJM herein explains that none of the claims posited by the Court in its Order, in light of among other realities, the facts of a.) RJM's condition of homelessness and unemployment from 6/13/08 to this date, b.) this Court's constructively forcing Attorney Galic out of the prosecution of this case, c.) the obstacles this Court continued to place in the way of RJM's endeavors to get all of the "Standard & Method of Adjudication" Issues RJM endeavored to get adequately "pressed and passed upon" in the trial court proceedings conducted in re whereto in order to ensure the preservation of any and all issues of a federal constitutional dimension for review pursuant to the authority promulgated in regard to such matters by Webb v Webb (_U.S._), in fact, pressed and passed upon, d.) the refusal of the Defendants wherein to stipulate in regard to res judicata and/or vicarious liability issues implicated in the adjudication of this case and this Court's obstruction of RJM's endeavors to secure such issues, e.) the magnitude of the burden involved in rectifying the institutional iniquity encountered by individuals burdened with having to conduct any affairs involving government entities in Cook County, IL, f.) the magnitude of the burdens RJM has had to bear in terms of preparing for and helping to deter the imposition of martial law in this Country and to deter government violence and crime and the violence and crime of those who have continued to retain control over government entities in this Country, g.) RJM's health problems, h.) RJM's many problems of conscience given the aggregate sinfulness of the society, and epecially its institutions at this juncture in its continued deterioration, i.) the burden to which RJM has continued to be subjected in regard to the multitude of legal injuries he has incurred over the years in terms of keeping the claims concerned, respectively, intact, amidst, inter alia the shackling of RJM with entirely unjustified sanctions and building access restrictions, as RJM is convinced that according to the principle that the "Law cannot require the impossible", RJM has in fact succeeded in keeping each and all of the claims the Court dismissed in this case beyond any relinquishment whereof, respectively, in that there is not any legitimacy in the Court's order, nor in any of the orders which preceded it in re this case, nor in any of the orders entered by Judge Beibel in re whereto other than possibly one or two in some areas; in that RJM has not yet encountered even a single person burdened in all of these ways who has succeeded in accomplishing anything more in rectifying the types of countless wrongs and evils this case concerns than has RJM to this juncture.


41. None of the claims presented as a basis for the dismissal of this case is either uncurable via the making of amendments to the AC, the provision of which were beyond the control of RJM to this juncture, attributable to either the obstructions placed in RJM's path by either the D's, the Court, or both, in regard to demands and proposals made by RJM whereto, respectively, and/or the hardships and adversities which RJM has had to bear over the past several years, or attributable to any mal, mis and/or culpable non-feasance of RJM, and thus absolutely zero progress has been made by any of RJM's adversaries, which definitely includes this Court which has so shamelessly abdicated the role of adjudicator and assumed the role of advocate of the D's named in this case in what has constituted the "defense" whereof, towards breaking RJM's commitment to ensure that the ascertainable and identifiable ends of justice are eventually accomplished in re the prosecution of this case, even should that result not be effected prior to RJM's entrance into eternity.


There is no legitimacy to the claim that a State can constrict and restrict a federal remedy, this Court's accusations that RJM had committed a direct criminal contempt at any juncture in the adjudication of this case is entirely incompatible with the still binding postulation of the standard for such type contempt in a state criminal trial, published in "In re Oliver (_U.S._).


Document under revision with next version(s) to be provided pursuant to time table included herein supra, to the extent such objective can be accomplished.

Under penalty of perjuy pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC 1746, I, Robert J. More do aver to the substantial accuracy of the factual averments included herein as previously recorded on 11/9/15.


/s/Robert J. More 021618



Count #1 of Indictment - Denial of Right to Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances


1. The contents of the EFP included herein supra, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.


2. On or about 031113, in Cook County, IL in the State of IL, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of IL ("USDCNDI"), the defendant Leroy Martin, then a Judge Exercising Judical Authority in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL adjudicated and dismissed the Motion to Reconsider his Order of 110912 in which he had dismissed Case # 11 CH 12339, which Robert J. More had filed in Case # 11 CH 12339 in the CCCC, IL, and the Motion RJM had filed on 030813 without providing any explanation demonstrating that such dismissal possessed legitimacy and if such dismissal did in fact lack legitimacy, which RJM is entirely convinced that it did, did in so doing, effect the deprivation of Robert J. More's ("RJM"), and the members of the general public of the right, amongst other rights, secured and protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States to not be deprived of "the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances, known as the Right of Access to the Courts," Chambers v Baltimore and Ohio RR (_U.S._), et al, as incorporated thru the incorporation provisions of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to the activity of individuals ever conducting activity on behalf of any state and/or political subdivision of any state while conducting activity under the color of law.


In violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 2.


Count #2 of Indictment - Denial of Procedural Due Process of Law


1. The contents of the EFP included herein supra, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.


2. On or about 031113, in Cook County, IL in the State of IL, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of IL ("USDCNDI"), the defendant Leroy Martin, then a Judge Exercising Judical Authority in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL adjudicated and dismissed the Motion to Reconsider his Order of 110912 in which he had dismissed Case # 11 CH 12339, which Robert J. More had filed in Case # 11 CH 12339 in the CCCC, IL, and the Motion RJM had filed on 030813 without providing any explanation demonstrating that such dismissal possessed legitimacy and if such dismissal did in fact lack legitimacy, which RJM is entirely convinced that it did, did in so doing, effect the deprivation of Robert J. More's ("RJM"), and the members of the general public of the right, amongst other rights, secured and protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States to not be deprived of "the Right to Due Process of Law", guaranteed to Citizens of the u.s. of A. by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


In violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 2.


Count #3 of Indictment - Denial of Ninth Amendment Presumption of Liberty


1. The contents of the EFP included herein supra, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.


2. On or about 031113, in Cook County, IL in the State of IL, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of IL ("USDCNDI"), the defendant Leroy Martin, then a Judge Exercising Judical Authority in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL adjudicated and dismissed the Motion to Reconsider his Order of 110912 in which he had dismissed Case # 11 CH 12339, which Robert J. More had filed in Case # 11 CH 12339 in the CCCC, IL, and the Motion RJM had filed on 030813 without providing any explanation demonstrating that such dismissal possessed legitimacy and if such dismissal did in fact lack legitimacy, which RJM is entirely convinced that it did, did in so doing, effect the deprivation of Robert J. More's ("RJM"), and the members of the general public of the right secured and protected by the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States to not be deprived of the presumption of liberty, et al, as incorporated thru the incorporation provisions of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to the activity of individuals ever conducting activity on behal of any state and/or political subdivision of any state while conducting activity under the color of law.


In violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 2.


Count #4 of Indictment - Denial of Substantive Due Process of Law


1. The contents of the EFP included herein supra, are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.

2. On or about 031113, in Cook County, IL in the State of IL, within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of IL ("USDCNDI"), the defendant Leroy Martin, then a Judge Exercising Judical Authority in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL adjudicated and dismissed the Motion to Reconsider his Order of 110912 in which he had dismissed Case # 11 CH 12339, which Robert J. More had filed in Case # 11 CH 12339 in the CCCC, IL, and the Motion RJM had filed on 030813 without providing any explanation demonstrating that such dismissal possessed legitimacy and if such dismissal did in fact lack legitimacy, which RJM is entirely convinced that it did, did in so doing, effect the deprivation of Robert J. More's ("RJM"), and the members of the general public of the right secured and protected by the Substantive Due Process Provision (legem et terris) of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to the activity of individuals ever conducting activity on behal of any state and/or political subdivision of any state while conducting activity under the color of law.


In violation of 18 U.S.C. 242 and 2.


Robert J. More has averred under penalty of perjury to the veracity of any and all factual averments included herein supra and such averments have constituted the basis for the issuance of this true bill. /s/ Robert J. More 021618