Document List of 1/6/10 (D/L 1/6/10)

Tobeposted1-6-10 Sotodcmtr-www.thirstforjustice.777host.us(sotodcmtr) 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.1

Document List of 1/6/10 (D/L 1/6/10) 1. D/L 1/6/10 Code (1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.1) 2. MTR of 1/6/10 Code (1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.2) 3. Notice of …Code # (“C#”) 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.3 4. Declar of Uncon C# - 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.4

Sotodcmtr-www.thirstforjustice.777host.us(sotodcmtr) 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.2 United States District Court for the District of Columbia Robert J. More Petitioner/Plaintiff V Case # 09-1487 Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, Secretary of the United States Senate, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Harry Reid, Respondents/Defendants

INITIAL SUPERABBREVIATED, NOT YET PROOFREAD, COMPONENT OF 1/6/10 OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TO BE SUPERCEDED, PROVIDENCE PERMITTING, BY 1/15/10, ACCOMPANIED BY NOTICE THAT ANY ADJUDICATION OF THIS MOTION, OTHER THAN ITS SUMMARY GRANTING, PRIOR TO 1/15/10 WOULD ELICIT A NON-DISCRETIONARY FILING OF A COMPLAINT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT AND/OR INJUNCTION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE (“USMS”) , THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE U.S. AND THE ENTIRETY OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (“DC”) TO PREVENT THE POSITING OF ANY INTERFERENCE TO THE PRESENTATON OF EVIDENCE TO ANY FEDERAL GRAND JURY CONDUCTING ACTIVITY IN THE DC WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS THAT THIS COURT IN SUCH SCENARIO WOULD HAVE INCURRED FELONY LIABILITY PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE U.S. CODE, THOSE OF 18 USC 242, 1346 AND 1503, FOR THIS COURT TO GRANT RJM ACCESS TO THE ELECTRONIC DOCKET SYSTEM WITHOUT THE INCURRMENT OF ANY FEES, TO DIRECT THE CLERK TO PERMIT RJM TO E-FILE WHATEVER HAS TO BE FILED IN REGARD TO THIS CASE IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT BE SUPERCEDING COMPONENTS OF A RULE 59(E) MOTION, ANY NUMBER OF (COMPONENTS OF) ANY RULE 60 MOTIONS WHICH MIGHT EVER HAVE TO BE FILED ETC. ETC. OR TO PROVIDE RJM OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE WHICH RJM WOULD EVER HAVE TO FILE HEREIN VIA EMAIL OR THE POSTING TO THE URL LISTED HEREIN SUPRA, ACCOMPANIED, SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF SERVICE OF PROCESS IN THIS CASE, BY THE PROVISON OF NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, (BUT PROVIDING SUCH NOTICE TO THIS COURT IN ALL CASES) AND TO PROCURE A CONFIRMATION FROM THIS COURT THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THAT RJM INTENDS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN REGARD TO THE CASE THIS MOTION CONCERNS (“THIS CASE”), SET A DATE VIA WHICH RJM WOULD HAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN REGARD TO THIS CASE IN ORDER TO PROTECT WHATEVER CLAIM(S) RJM PRESENTLY POSSESSES TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY VIGILANTE MEASURES WHICH MIGHT EVER HAVE TO BE UTILIZED IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE INJUSTICE EVIDENTLY STILL PREVAILING IN THE MATTERS THIS CASE CONCERNS, VIA METHODS IN NO WAY LACKING MORAL LEGITIMACY AND TO PROCURE THIS COURTS CONFIRMATION THAT IT HAS BEEN INFORMED VIA THIS CONVEYANCE THAT RJM INTENDS TO POST ANOTHER DOCUMENT IN RE THIS MOTION AT SUCH URL ON 1/15/10 BEFORE 12:00 MIDNITE WHICH WOULD BE THE LAST MOMENT 1 ANYONE COULD ELECTRONICALLY FILE A RULE 59(E) MOTION BASED UPON THE ORDER OF 12/31/09 REFERENCED HEREIN SUPRA

Now comes the Plaintiff, Robert J. More, pursuant to the express provisions of the Order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. on 12/31/09 in regard to the appeal filed in regard to the case this motion concerns (“this case”), on behalf of the entirety of what is left of the Anti-degenerate component of the population of the u.S. of A. at this juncture in its free-fall into an ever deepening barbarity, and everything His Majesty, Christus Rex, can still justify not hating, in honor of all of those who have subjected themselves to the prospects of possible permanent disability and death, not to mention the moral difficulty involved in resorting to the use of the same types of force against individuals of varying measures of sinful culpability for cooperation in imposition of immoral agendas (and especially, in this regard, to Colonel C. Von Stauffenberg for the deference demonstrated by him to the ever-binding requirements of the moral law, which are of course manifestations of the rights of His Majesty, Christus Rex, to whom all authority has been given, both in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:20) in seeking the approbation of Pope Pius XII regarding his plan to assassinate Hitler before endeavoring to accomplish such objective), in their opposition to the Edomite’s (cf. Synagogue of Satan, (Apoc. 2:9, 3:9)) Genocide of the Goyim/Global Enslavement Agenda down through the centuries, but admittedly not by any express designation in regard thereto to move this Court to reconsider its order of 8/6/09 in the case this motion concerns (“this case”), to either summarily reinstate this case and provide whatever relief it would have to provide to recall the Senate vote on the Sotomayor nomination and require the reading into the Senate record of the entirety of the true judicial record of S. Sotomayor before the Senate would be permitted to vote on such nomination, or else to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law in a clause by clause assessment of the complaint it dismissed regarding the matters such complaint concern(ed)(s), so that RJM can now file an amended complaint in this case, if this Court would succeed in demonstrating according to a non-counterfeit standard of accountability and a method of assessment not incompatible with the promulgated requirements of 18 USC 242, 1346, 1503 and 2381, that there truly is a fatal deficiency in such complaint which justified its initial dismissal subject to the filing of an amended version thereof, which conjectural filing of such amended version thereof, is the stage in which the adjudication of this case is presently found to be, or else to simply sign a copy of the “Proposed Dec… RJM” (Code #... ) which accompanies this document, so that the evident injustice this case concerns can be rectified without any members of any policing entity having to be subjected to any type of sanction and/or legal proceeding to protect a given claim to employment for refusing to participate in the imposition of the injustice the order issued by this Court on 8/6/09, according to RJM’s informed understanding, imposed/inflicted upon the social order and all the members thereof, and if this Court will not grant any of the three alternative forms of relief described herein supra, to either extend the time within which RJM can file a Superceding Component of a Rule 59(e) motion through 2/17/10, or provide a confirmation that it has been informed that RJM is herein challenging the constitutionality as applied of the timetable established for C.R. of Proc. 59(e) to the adjudication of this case as being entirely incompatible with the provisions of Right to Petition, Due Process and Prohibition on Slavery Clauses of the Constitution of the u.S. of A. and seeking the establishment of a briefing schedule in regard to such matter or the provision of a confirmation that no such schedule would be provided under any circumstances, and in explanation and support whereof, RJM avers and explains as follows: 1. The law cannot compel the impossible, RJM is a non-indoor dwelling, unemployed truck-driver who finds it necessary to continue to conduct activity in the Post-Christian, Edomite Supremacist Movement Genocide of the 92% of the Goyim/Global Enslavement of the Rest, Police State Arrangment (“Apparatus”) and is overwhelmed with burdens and afflictions (evidence of which is available at the URL listed herein supra), most especially that of continuing to prepare to resort to the use of morally legitimate protective/anti-predatory force and survivalism skills and to continue to conduct and transmit intelligence and lay the pipe for non-counterfeit investigation (had a legitimate investigation been conducted into the 1933 Riechstag fire – who can say how much sin, blood-shed, suffering and misery would have been prevented, and how different the history of the world would have been?) to make a morally minimally acceptable contribution to the accomplishment of the objective which howsoever it might otherwise be defined, might be justifiably defined as “the continued prevention of the Edomites accomplishing the proximately conclusive destruction of the Non-counterfeit Version of the Rule of Law via their succeeding in using more of the types of assassinations/false flag terror acts/”natural disasters”/alleged “crisises”/controlled media propagandizing/thought control, the use of which is the problem-reaction-solution, contrived crisis modus operandi which they have used so effectively to bring the world to its present on-the-brink of total subsumption of all of the 2 governments of Europeans and Countries colonized by European Countries into the Synagogue of Satan New World Order posture in which it is presently found to be. 2. RJM cannot do more than now curtail this motion, and continue to augment it in future submissions and RJM informs this Court that that is what RJM intends to do. 3. If for whatever reason this Court would not provide in whatever order it would issue in regard to this motion, relief sufficient to justify RJM’s not suing it and/or endeavoring to get this Court convicted for violations of any provision of the criminal code applicable to its activity, RJM would move to have it promulgate a formula via which RJM might be capable of transmitting interrogatories, proposed verified statements, proposed stipulations, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and/or any other type of communication to it, and for the procurement of confirmations regarding the reception thereof from anyone upon whom the service of any such type document would ever be attempted, and likewise in regard to any and all of those through whose hands the complaint dismissed on 8/6/09 proceeded. 4. The issue of what measure of consideration RJM understands that this Court and the Clerk’s Office and its employees was (were) obliged to provide to RJM and the public, not to mention future generations if His Majesty does not return imminently, in order not to incur criminal and/or tort liability in its adjudication of this case subsequent to this Court’s reception of the complaint received on 8/5/09, will be addressed in the next submission submitted to this Court. Wherefore, RJM herein seeks the relief described in the title and/or in the opening paragraph of this motion Indignantly - unless the Court was justified in issuing the order it issued on 8/6/09, submitted, Robert J. More – Jn. 21:15, MC Clause 61, Papal Christmas Message of 1956, Rom 12:21 – Suspect Stumblebum, Heartless Coward, Or Both, Until The Atrocities Of The Edomites Will Have Been Adequately Avenged

Sotodcmtr-www.thirstforjustice.777host.us(sotodcmtr) 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.2

United States District Court for the District of Columbia Robert J. More Petitioner/Plaintiff V Case # 09-1487 Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, Secretary of the United States Senate, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Mr. Harry Reid, Respondents/Defendants

NOTICE IS HEREIN PROVIDED that a copy of the accompanying: INITIAL SUPERABBREVIATED, NOT YET PROOFREAD, COMPONENT OF 1/6/10 OF MOTION TO RECONSIDER…..and a copy of this notice, has been filed with the Court via the mailing thereto to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, at: 333 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001 on or before 1/7/10, and set for telephonic hearing on 1/29/10 – 14 days after the 10 day window on Rule 59(e) motions filed based upon orders issued on 12/31/09 would be due , in the Courtroom of Judge R. Walton , a true and correct copy of which is herewith served upon you. ______Robert J. More P.O. Box 6926 Chicago, IL 60680, 312 545-1890 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE N/A – as no Defendants have yet been served except in regard to the TRO sought on 8/5/09 and/or 8/6//09

Sotodcmtr-www.thirstforjustice.777host.us(sotodcmtr) 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.1

3 Document List of 1/6/10 (D/L 1/6/10) 1. D/L 1/6/10 Code (1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.1) 2. MTR of 1/6/10 Code (1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.2) 3. Notice of …Code # (“C#”) 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.3 4. Declar of Uncon C# - 1/6/10/09, b.32, c., m. n. p.4

Decunmpcon12-29-09 b.30 ….. n. o. www.thirstforjustice.777host.us (….) (Decuncon….) More v Griffith CCSD et al 09 CH 18934 Motion And Proposed Order For Declaration Of Unconstitutionality As Applied Of Provisions Of Criminal Codes - Template 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

4 1. (It is herein proposed that any clause contained herein which would cause any Court to refuse to sign this document be stricken over the explicitly confirmed and acknowledged objection of the proponent thereof, so that no clause, the inclusion of which would render it impossible for such proponent to presently procure a signature upon this document, would be left herein such that the signature herein sought would remain unprocured, without in the endeavor - to procure a signature on a document which might facilitate the procurement of some form of relief and/or the elimination of some burden - there being present the making of any unjustified concessions to the activity of the devil, and such that it could never be claimed that the proposition was unjustifiably conciliatory and/or characterized by concessions which the proponent thereof would possess no authority to make, acknowledging that in exigent circumstances wherein a signature upon some modified version of any original proposal could facilitate the procurement of a benefit or the elimination of an evil, the effect of which would evidently be more beneficial to the interests of the Catholic Church than would be whatever condition would be left in place as a consequence of whatever injury or loss might accrue to such Church from the non-inclusion of any clause in whatever declaration would have been issued which would not include the entirety of whatever would have been included in the proposal originally offered, it is the proponent of this postulation’s understanding that the procurement of a document in some measure modified would not be unjustified, but that great solicitude must necessarily be exercised in this regard, lest non-negotiables end up being unjustifiably conceded and/or otherwise compromised. (SEVERABILITY CLAUSE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AND STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION))

By the authority vested in this Court pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of the united States of America {or by any other authority and/or any authority howsoever described (include any other formulation here:______)} as the derivation of such authority has been transmitted down through the centuries of the history of Western Civilization, through the succession of generations reaching back prior to the signing of the Magna Charta on June 15, 1215 A.D. to the signing of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 A.D., and in consideration of the consideration and protections to which the people of the united States of America (“u.S.A”, “u.S. of A.”))(or any other formulation describing the citizens of the 50 states that presently constitute the Union and/or Republic of the u.S. of A. howsoever described and/or appelled) are entitled, correlative to the moral liability to which such persons are subject under the immutable requirements of the natural law as such as been inscribed upon the heart of every man (Romans 1:15 et al) and that any arrangement at any juncture in place imputable to whatever combination of contributing causes which would effectively constitute a deprivation of the measures of consideration guaranteed to all citizens of such Union and/or Republic by amongst other provisions of such Constitution, those of the Prohibition on the Establishment of a Religion, Prohibition on the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion, Right to Petition, Due Process, Supremacy and/or Guaranty Clauses of such Constitution and/or the prohibition on slavery explicitly promulgated in the Thirteenth Amendment to such Constitution, the prohibition on the denial of the equal protection of the laws and the implicit prohibition present in the Fourteenth Amendment to such Constitution upon 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 Seventh Circuit (“7th C.C.A”) Judge(s) Daniel Manion, Diane Sykes or Kenneth Ripple should any such type charge have been postulated in any proceeding ever conducted in the States of IL, WI or IN 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 IL, WI or IN, with provision for the adjudication of any such type charge that might ever be postulated in IL, WI or IN, before one of the two SCOTUS Justices listed herein supra, should none of the 7th C.C.A. Judges listed supra be available in a given case to adjudicate any habeas corpus petition which might ever be submitted to any of them and/or the clerk of the 7th C.C.A. ______, ______Signature Date

5 OR: This Court herein declares all laws over which this Court possesses jurisdiction not concerning any activity which could be justifiably classified as malum in se unconstitutional as such ever might be applied to the activity of RJM, in the absence of the issuance of this Declaration for the following period, subject to renewal on a periodic basis, until 20 years after the control of the money supplies of all of the European Countries and Countries colonized by European Countries would have been taken back from the members of the ten Edomite Banking Families which presently control all such money supplies and the fortunes procured through fraud, extortion and murder, including mass murder, of such individuals and all of the entities they own would have been justly disgorged, all policing entities larger than the size of a militia and/or a mutual defense pact which could be summonsed in an hour’s time would have been disarmed and Winston Smith’s (eg. Luis Guitierreze) of the governments of the Occident countries would have been adequately punished for the treason committed by them OR: This Court, ever mindful, that the authority which it exercises in this case, has ultimately emanated from the consequences of a commitment to use force by the English Peasants at Runneyemede in 1215, were King John III not to grant them the concessions which they then and there demanded as being the minimal consideration which they could accept, without in accepting anything, less incurring a most egregiously sinful complicity in deprivations and predations, the likes of which no human being, created in God’s image and likeness, who would hope to retain a claim to procure the reward promised to those who refuse to make any unjustified concessions to evil & to avoid the punishment guaranteed to those who do not require themselves to refuse to make any such type of unjustified concessions, and who otherwise satisfy the requirements of the moral law in the conduct of their mortal lives at least to the extent necessary to ensure that their moral liability would not have been left not adequately covered in any substantial area in regard to which their activity in the earthly theatre would ultimately be assessed (Matt. 25:26 et al), could justifiably accept from any sovereign, and the actual use of force by those British American Colonists who in 1775, refused to make the same type of unjustified concessions to the predations and deprivations which the then reigning British Sovereign was at that time perpetrating upon them; acknowledges that no morally legitimate formula concerning the relations of people and their government(s), could ever be proposed which would not include provision for vigilantism and/or domestic insurrection in situations in which means less likely to result in the types of serious consequences which has always caused the Catholic Church to insist that remedies for the rectification of injustices and the resolution of disputes alternative to those involving the use of force, always be exhausted prior to anyone’s resorting to force for the accomplishment of such objectives, howsoever legitimate and necessary the use of force for such purposes might be in a given instance, be, but for the following reasons, asserts that the conditions which would have to be present in order for force to be justifiably utilized in these matters described supra are not present at this time either because conditions independent of RJM’s control render the use of force unnecessary and hence unjustified which are identified as follows ______-, ______, ______(use additional paper as needed) or because RJM has not proven to this Court’s satisfaction that he possesses the requisite combination of adequately adjusted priorities and moral fiber for this Court to now provide him the type of “Declaration of Unconstitutionality as Applied…RJM….” which this Court would understand and consider that RJM would have had to have demonstrated in order for it to provide RJM such type order ______, and that further, correlative to this assertion that RJM simply has not yet demonstrated the possession of such type priorities and moral fiber to this Court’s satisfaction, this Court herein informs RJM that if RJM would complain that it would be RJM’s position that such position of the Court could not on the whole be justified, that RJM would be welcome to explain to this Court the basis upon which RJM would posit such claim, so that upon the consideration of any such postulations as RJM might present in this regard, this Court could without further delay and the imposition of any further burden upon RJM in this regard, issue the type of order RJM has sought herein, or that RJM would have to satisfy the following exact requirements and/or make the following exact modifications in his priorities and/or modus operandi in order to procure the type of order which he has herein sought ______, ______, ______-(use additional paper as necessary). 2. This Court is reluctant to provide any affirmative endorsement of the nature proposed herein, but at this juncture would at least provide a nihil obstat – indicating that it could not see any reason why some Court of higher authority than this ought have any reluctance to provide a signature on the document or something similar in regard to the activity of Robert J. More in general (subject to the following restrictions, limitations and prohibitions) ______, ______, ______. Last revised 9/15/08, next scheduled revision 8/15/10, any input for the next revision would be much appreciated

Robert J. More P.O. Box 6926, Chicago, IL 60680, 312 545-1890 [email protected]