Table of contents                             PAGE 2-3

the order of the court, April 12, 2011  retyped                                                                                page 3
Excerpts from various trial filings case 11-1639
April 11, 11 de novo                                       Page 4-6
march 18, 11  Report and recommendations established 3/15/11.
“The court recommends dismissing this action as to all defendants.”                                               Page6-8
US supreme 08-1339                                      Page8-10
march 24, 11   jurisdiction memorandum
Page 10-13
march 26, 11 plaintiff objects 2257             Page 13-15
march 26,11 Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!
THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?
Page15-19
April 4, 11  Plaintiffs response:  to the issues of constitutional law/ avoided by the defense.
his “rule to show cause”.                               Page19-23
April 5,   docketing statement                     Page 23-26
April 15 an illegal act                                  Page 27-29

excerpts from case 10-2257
11/ 15/ 10   failure                                         Page30-33
12/3/ 10      Valid cause of action                  Page33-38
1/ 28/11    Redress means                             Page38-42
11/15/11 we have a contract                         Page42-44
11/26/11 table of content for reference
argument begins                               Page 44-46
argument begins (we the people for real)

                  Page46-48
12/ 20/ 10 plaintiff replies                           Page 48-50
1/7/ 11 amended complaint                         Page 50-53
8/17/10 letter to IRS, contract                     Page53-55
2/18/11 summary argument                        Page 55-59

The order of the court being appealed, retyped to fit the new format required by the supreme court.
Seventh circuit, Chicago IL before William J. Bauer/ Terrence T. Evans/ Ann Claire Williams
order April 12, 2011
quote: “on consideration of the papers filed in this appeal and review of the short record,   it is ordered that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigants may permit magistrate judges to decide civil cases, and an appeal from the magistrate judge’s decision comes straight to the court of appeals.  28 U.S.C.  636 (C) .  But unless all parties to the litigation consent on the record, the magistrate judge may do no more than make a recommendation, and the parties must present their objections to the district court.  Brook & Weinberg V.  Coreg, Inc, 53 F. 3d 851 (7th circuit, 1995).
In the present case, the parties have not consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge.  Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a review of the magistrate judge’s “report and recommendation” of March 15, 2011.”

EXCERPTS FROM 11-1639, TAKEN FROM TEXT

     In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court
For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

dated: April 13, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America

Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the US Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

Plaintiffs response:   DE NOVO April 11, 2011

The foundation of every judicial court/ appellate court in this nation called AMERICA:   is that in terms of subject matter, these employees of government called the judiciary/  shall represent and obey the constitution of this United States of America as written.  The legal right of every citizen established:  as authorized and created within the constitution of this USA.  That is the job of every judge.
That is a foundation of law, a fact of sworn oath, and a description of duty that does not expand unto discretion.  The judge does not decide/ the constitution does!  This is the leniency,  afforded any judge in this nation; “great or small”.  Your job is to adhere to, and protect the constitution of our government/ by its own terms called:   WE THE PEOPLE!  Simple as that.

Redress of grievances according to the first amendment of the constitution IS A PART OF THAT LAW/ A PART OF YOUR SWORN OATH TO OBEY, DEFEND,  AND PROTECT.   It is not a political right/ it is a legal right guaranteed to each and every citizen in this nation: whether they be “great or small”/ same for all.  A legal right to demand that when OUR GOVERNMENT/ NOT your government as employees for we the people.  But our government; when our employees create: the evidences/ the realities of failure/ the potential fraud and deceit so distinctly visible at this time in the history of this nation, that NONE of the people themselves doubts:   WE ARE IN TROUBLE HERE.  As is this day and time.

In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court
For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604

APPELLATE CASE #_______________
THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257
dated: March 18, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
VS
United States of America

Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

IN THE US COURT OF APPEALS

the appeal of case 10‑2257
Judge David G. Bernthal
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Report and recommendations established 3/15/11.
“The court recommends dismissing this action as to all defendants.”

article 3: discussion:   the purpose of a courtroom is JUSTICE, through the laws democracy provides for that purpose and desire. There is no power in the judiciary to claim otherwise/ NO possibility a judge or group of judges is above the law.  There is no authority to misconstrue, or misinterpret our intent: that this democracy shall be: OF THE PEOPLE/ BY THE PEOPLE/ AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

Dismissed for lack of a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.  Refers too “...a count must also be mindful, however, that it should not allow defendants to be subjected to “paranoid pro se litigation....alleging...a vast encompassing conspiracy”.    Added is ....”plaintiff’s merit‑less litigation to conclude that a complaint consists of naked assertions and delusional scenarios.

 In witness thereof: the judge uses the following, as sufficient for dismissal: thereby meeting not the basis or purpose of a courtroom in this USA.

IN THIS APPEAL: WE WILL EXAMINE WHAT IS TRUE?
THE CONSPIRACY TO DENY DEMOCRACY, to destroy or conspire against the first, fourth,  seventh, & fourteenth amendments to this US CONSTITUTION.
We begin:
1.  That my claim in this trial and others is very simply the law must be obeyed by the courtroom of this america and this state of IL.

ADDED IN AS PROOF OF DENIAL, BY THE JUDICIARY
        No.
_______08-1339_______________________
In The
SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES

                       James Frank Osterbur ,
                       petitioner
V.
The United States of America &
The State of Illinois
                      Respondent

On petition for a writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit, Chicago IL

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

petitioner files pro se, as a citizen both of IL and this USA

                        James Frank Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 6187

                           i

          QUESTION PRESENTED
The first amendment to the US constitution states and gives the following legal right:   “....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. “

As there can be NO DOUBT, or legal argument as to the condition of this USA in terms of “grievances” as to how our employees both of state and nation have failed to protect our lives, failed to protect our money, have created numerous threats that could lead to our extinction as a nation, world, or all life on earth.  The critical question examined within the various courts of law that have preceded this case are all focused on the vary same issue.   WE THE PEOPLE,   MUST HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ABOUT OUR SITUATION IN BOTH STATE AND NATION, that we may truly know what is important for us to address, what is necessary for us to protect for ourselves, and our future, and our children’s future.   And our world.   Because it is clear, the leaders of this nation, OUR EMPLOYEES of government, who are assigned to do, “according to the intent and mandate of this US and state constitution” have failed.  They lack clarity, they discard honor, they despise honesty, and they cannot be trusted.  Therefore we this nation and this state, MUST have a redress of grievances to protect ourselves from further damage by people who do not know what they are doing/ don’t care about what they are doing/ or are so corrupt in what they are doing, that criminal charges must occur.Therefore the question to the court is:WILL YOU HONOR, THE FIRST AMENDMENT: REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS  NATION?

DENIED

In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court

For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

dated: March 24, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500 

“jurisdictional memorandum” 

REVIEWING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT, March 21,2011

Cowardice is not a constitutional right.  Democracy (WE THE PEOPLE rule over ourselves with law) is not a judicial option/ it is the foundation by law;  required of every judge to submit too.  The right of appeal DOES NOT extend to a rule of the court, or a law of legislatures/ because the constitutional mandate & law was not submitted too/ but rejected, by the court.  When you step outside the law, when you refuse the constitution itself:   you lose all protection provided by that law.  Therefore  “The constitution rules this case”, NOT the judge.  You have NO AUTHORITY over the constitution: IT DECIDES FOR THE NATION.  But the constitution has authority over you, and every courtroom.  Prove this is not so, or your case for dismissal is lost/ your order rejected, and trial begins.  Lies in a courtroom, where all are fully and completely aware: constitutes perjury.  Intentionally stripping away my constitutional rights, which do guarantee me a courtroom, and a literal decision by a judge/ according to the law, ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: is treason, when the nation itself is at stake.  Prove this is not so , or your case for dismissal is lost/ your order rejected, and trial begins.
THE RULE OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/   NOT the rule or whim of a judge:  is an absolute guaranteed right provided to each and every citizen.  Prove this is not so , or your case for dismissal is lost/ your order rejected, and trial begins.

IN US DISTRICT COURT
For the central district of IL
Urbana IL 61801

THE CASE:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

TITLED:   PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO:
THE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS   CASE 10‑2257

dated: March 26,  2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America

Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

A:  DISCLOSURE includes and is defined as:
The precepts and  parameters of trial: THIS IS DEMOCRACY.
That the judiciary is in every way “amenable to the people/ indeed their trustees and servants”: so says the bill of rights, TO YOU.

THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS, the right of the judiciary to its powers and authority ONLY during “good behavior”/ it is not an insignificant interpretation to demand that good behavior is created during the honorable application of justice/ fair play/ and equality for all the people, in their actions/ and in their ways/ to aid and sustain justice for all. Good behavior does NOT include “a lifetime appointment to the judicial bench”; that right, to replace:  is stolen from us.  It is blind arrogance that asserts an insignificant rule has anything to do with justice/ has anything to do with constitutional law/ has anything to do with WE THE PEOPLE, or this DEMOCRACY.  Instead the use and consideration of the contract: each employee of the judiciary has with this people, is very simply: YOU HAVE MADE A PROMISE TO US/ that there shall be justice for all.  There is no integrity within the court when the law can be dismissed; the need or right of any person discarded; for nothing more than a rule/ or the opinion of a judge. Either the law rules, through constitutional guarantees for justice, or it does not. That means the law must dismiss, not the judge. The conspiracy to control the courtroom, rather than open it to the law and the constitution by the terms of “WE THE PEOPLE” continues to grow. As the evidence shows, in cases presented to the court by this appellant; particularly US supreme court 08‑1339.  The question presented: “the first amendment of the US constitution states and gives the following legal right: “...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances”......the question to the court:  WILL YOU HONOR, THE FIRST AMENDMENT : REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION?  They dismissed, with one word, and a clerks’ signature.  “That ain’t, judicial procedure”/ its rebellion.

          In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court
For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

dated: March 26, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

“The lies, come spewing through”
the review of defendant response jurisdictional memorandum  March 24, 2011

The  defendants HAVING RECEIVED, the preliminary brief March 18; well before the court order/ as is consistent with my practice as a plaintiff/ appellant; the defense asserts it is my only opportunity to respond to that order.  Rather by their record keeping this is item 28, notice of appeal/ filing fee paid.  A very clear response to the judges report and recommendation; item 27.  That cannot be misinterpreted. The defense lies; asserting none exists:   yet plainly it is in his possession as he marks this defense exhibit 3.  In fact with a response to the order of the appellate court, the March 24 “plaintiff judicial memorandum” is again sent to the district court; so that no such illusion can take place. Received twice, but slightly after March 24, and not an item yet.  Further:   court file 26 “motion to reconsider” did in fact give the judge opportunity to understand that I did object/ and it was his responsibility to do better. There is no substance to the perjury an objection was not raised by the defense:  it is the evidence of court.  Whether by an actual word written “objection” on the paper or not.  The substance of truth, by the evidence an objection exists:  is without doubt inviolate and true.  Nonetheless the judge refused further consideration;   sending report and recommendation the next day March 15, 2011.  Which established: THIS IS the appropriate time for appeal. As was done, on March 18, 2011

The defense is wrong, regarding my ability to legally respond further/ by the order of the court, I do.  Quote: “it is ordered that both appellant and appellees shall file, on or before April 4, 2011, a brief memorandum...”.   I cannot respond to an order of the court prior to its existence.  Therefore I have absolutely no requirement by law to submit to, or accept;   the assertion that this is “all I get”.  In fact my response has already been mailed, and dated March 24, 2011.  Titled: “jurisdictional memorandum”   This is March 25, 2011.
NO rights regarding “jurisdictional memorandum” have been waived, and I have now submitted to the district court a titled document stating “ an objection” and response to both the US district court and the US appellate courts, as well as each defendant and lawyer.  Therefore the lawyers for the defense as a result of this CANNOT defeat the ends of justice, with mere conclusions that can be asserted as lies: so says the evidence.  Rather it is then considered a conspiracy among all defendants/ that this attempt to rape and ransack the law from me, by removing not only my day in court/ but even my name from the initial filing (blacked out, on this filing);   is not justice being served.

  You did not wait for my response/ that is not my fault: I AM well within the time limit/ set by the court to file “an objection”.  However in the  jurisdictional memorandum the defense sends: they or the court chooses to block out my name on the document I filed on 3/ 18/ 11. [they label exhibit 3] The purpose of that is completely unclear/ unless of course they intend to remove this case from the files, and declare it never existed; as has been done in the past.

Even so we begin with the defendants “factual statement”/ page 2. Number 2:
“  The parties did not consent on the record”.
This litigation is a constitutional law demanding redress of grievances according to the first amendment; that is the primary complaint.  And this law either exists as constitutional guarantee to each and every citizen or it does not.  Therefore the question presented is:   DOES THE COURT OBEY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PRODUCE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES for this citizen/     OR    DOES THE COURT AND THESE DEFENDANTS ARGUE, THERE IS NO SUCH LAW? Thereby the US CONSTITUTION must then be a fraud.

                            In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court
For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

dated: April 4, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the US Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

Plaintiffs response:  to the issues of constitutional law/ avoided by the defense.
his “rule to show cause”.

The court knows that in clear and concise definitions of Constitutional law/ wherein this appellant has demanded the simple truth:   that REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES a first amendment right guaranteed to all the people by the constitution of this United States of America.   Controls the courtroom, and the judge.  You have NO discretion/ it is the law/ by oath you have committed yourselves to obey.  That is a simple fact.
There are NO ISSUES of jurisdiction:  there is merely the question of whether the judicial employees/ leadership of this government, working for our  democracy as:  “WE THE PEOPLE: who rule ourselves by law”. Must obey our constitutional demands or not? Do they instead:   the judicial Claim to be superior to this people and their law/ is correct, or not?  The constitution commands the judge and the court to obey that constitutional law, called redress of grievances:  Want to,  or not.  Simply yes or no!  An act of rebellion or treason against the people to refuse; simply yes or no?
Every court in this nation is required to obey the constitution of this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, is that not fact.  Every courtroom in this nation is required to assist and establish the guarantees of each and every citizen of this nation without jurisdictional issues.  Because that is fundamentally and functionally the job of both courtroom and judge; GRANTED to you by your oath of office that said:   “I shall obey and protect the guarantees and duties of this constitution for this nation called the United States”.  Prove me wrong.

Every court/ every judge, in America is required to uphold the fourteenth amendment guaranteeing me not only the rights granted by the constitution/ but the jurisdiction that cannot be denied in the matter of constitutional law.  Due process is not discretionary/ it’s the law.  What is guaranteed to me/ us cannot be dismissed without the law established as true. Therein you stand as criminals, fully intent upon an active and vile rebellion against the people of this USA.  BECAUSE you honor them not.  Your actions seek to destroy the foundation and fabric of constitutional authority/ and subjugate it to the failure of employees too lazy or vile to accept their duty.  This case is no less than the supremacy of law within this nation.  This case is no less than the supremacy of constitutional authority over every employee and inferior law in this nation.  That means:   it is a matter of treason to find yourself on the side of those who believe they can usurp and deny the constitution or this people.  Let the people decide.
The foundation order of this nation, upon each and every employee in government is the same/ and that goes even more so to each and every employee in the judiciary.  Again it reads:

you shall accept   “WE the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

The reality of work accomplished by the evidence in court throughout this case is very simply this:    Every single demand made upon the court, its judge, its lawyers fro the people;   by the constitution:   upon you, has been not only discarded/ but rebelled against, by each litigant and member of the legal bar, in this case.  You know what the law is.   With full and clear knowledge that to deny, defraud, and disperse constitutional law is a criminal act.  You know, that the defense of a nation depends upon you/ and still you rebel against the foundation of this society, its very democracy.  That is a crime, to stand against the constitution of America and establish a barrier against all it stands for.  That is, the act of a traitor to this nation.  I suggest you relent, immediately.

                            In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court
For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

dated: April 5, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the US Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

  “CIRCUIT RULE 3C Docketing statement”

  I, James Frank Osterbur, hereby declare and serve notice,

that I am appealing the failure of federal district court, in Urbana IL to obey constitutional law.  Appealing the disruption of common judicial due process, by imitating closure and setting the trap called “report and recommendation”.  Appealing the assumption of a decision that the defendant being an employee of this USA, can simply decide if they want to consent to trial in a matter of constitutional law.  Appealing the open rebellion in court,  against the US constitution and this people.  Appealing the assumption of immunity, when constitutional mandate and the authority of democracy clearly dictates the outcome of trial, and the reality of who shall be called to court.  As it is our employees that have sworn to obey the constitution, protect and defend this democracy as written for this people; and that has been denied.
The legal contract that is functionally “the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT” called the constitution of this USA;  with aid and support from the foundations called the bill of rights and the declaration of independence.  HAS BEEN BROKEN.  That leaves the issue of legal and criminal penalties with regard to the critical test of a sworn oath to obey the constitution as written;  by those employees who have refused.
The establishment of constitutional guarantee and decree is however my purpose here.  The reality of constitutional law; as is redress of grievances:   the contract of our employees in the judiciary to obey, and provide to each and every one of the citizens of this USA, is my demand.  The form and foundations of that guarantee have been listed.

Because the court says “not final yet” in district court/ even though it clearly is.  I will allow the return to district court, WITH FULL AND FAIR AND COMPLETE in every detail that matters for the reality of redress of grievances to take place within that courtroom by establishing trial as indicated for the people.  With all mailings necessary for the public interest/ the associated selection of a jury by lottery as defined/ and the consequent realities of providing to this people their own authority through redress of grievances as has been described.
ANY issue raised with regard to the format or subdivision of this trial SHALL go through me.  That, is the price of your failure.

Regarding jurisdiction; again this is a matter of  constitutional law/ there is NO issue of jurisdiction, I do have a right to be heard in every court in this land.  It is a guaranteed right of citizenship, that cannot be dismissed or changed by any judge, or excuse.  There are no other courts involved/ no other states wherein this trial is being exercised.  There are NO excuses regarding the denial and intent to discard the constitution of this USA: without criminal trespass (on my property & citizen rights/ my due process guaranteed to me) and  the issues of treason the deliberate intent to deny and destroy and defraud with prejudice the authority provided to each and every citizen of this USA by their constitution/ within their DEMOCRACY:    Called    WE THE PEOPLE.
OBEY THE LAW, provide redress/ or send it on to the US supreme court/ or expect criminal prosecution, for destroying the rights constitutionally guaranteed to me/ to us all.  Because there is NO IMMUNITY for anyone, to break, deny, destroy, defraud, STEAL, lie, cheat, or establish a forcible detainer against  constitutional law/ or its guarantees as written.  That is absolute disrespect for this democracy, and there will be consequences; let the people decide.

                    In UNITED STATES APPELLATE Court
For the SEVENTH CIRCUIT of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
219 S. DEARBORN ST   CHICAGO IL, 60604
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

dated: April 15, 2011

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
http://www.justtalking3.info

VS

United States of America

Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the US Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

Plaintiffs response: court order April 12, 2011
on the grounds it is, an illegal act.

 APPELLATE  JUDGES:         William J Bauer
Terence T. Evans
Ann Claire Williams

Having entered an illegal order of the court/ having lied about the content and merit of their decision/ having discarded the rules of the court and presented a delusion of arrogance; instead of justice.  Including; You did not wait for my reply, in a de novo trial/ which means you did DENY me my constitutional right of DUE PROCESS. The plaintiff filing of April 13, 2011 holds authority over this order:  because  The court acts in defiance of its own procedure and rules.

You did:  DELIBERATELY DENY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS UNITED STATES AND ITS AUTHORITY over the court, the judge and each defendant/ an act of betrayal and anarchy.  Choosing instead to be rulers  OF each CITIZEN/ instead of employee of our government called the constitution.  The foundation of democracy rules over you/ by the demand: WE THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THIS DEMOCRACY;  to rule ourselves by the law, that is our written constitution.   Having abandoned this rule of law, this constitution of the nation called America; the act of treason is displayed.
In this CRIMINAL ACT against the nation itself.   Deliberately & fully intending to strip from me my legal rights/  our legal guarantees as citizens of this nation called the United States of America. The reality defined:  is the act of a thief, hiding in the sewer of useless disguises: whose only purpose is to steal our liberty, our freedom, and even the nation itself, by discarding the very law by which we are entitled to rule ourselves.
Therefore  3 felony charges exist/ one demand of criminal trespass: 
1.       These judges:   have committed treason by altering and denying the constitution itself; to suit their own ends, rather than obeying the law as written and guaranteed to me. Redress of grievances is that law/ our law,  of the first amendment, plainly written.  That is an act of BETRAYAL against we the people.
The intentional decision to commit anarchy against the nation, citizenry,  and me; by denying what cannot be denied; the very law that grants our nation to be.  The lifeblood of our spirit and union as Americans.  That is an act of violence, attacking and destroying the foundation of law that is OUR GOVERNMENT/ our NATION/ ourselves as we the people:   called the constitution itself.

  EXCERPTS FROM 10-2257, TAKEN FROM TEXT.

IN US DISTRICT COURT
For the central district of IL
Urbana IL 61801

James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E.  St. Joseph IL 61873
Vs.
United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NW Washington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

dated: 11/15/10                                       trial number: 10‑CV‑2257

RE:   the failure of: (YOU, “the employees” working for the people of this United States),  to provide for/ sustain/ secure/ protect/ establish the demands of the Constitution preamble, its amendments; and the declaration of independence, plus the bill of rights: as is their “job description”.  To create justice (you did not; every thief/ every fraud/ every conspiracy against this people welcomed in)/ retain a separation of church and state as is the religion called evolution (you did not)/  work for world peace with law (you chose weapons of mass destruction instead, threatening us with extinction)/ and a wide variety of other tragic, foolish, disgraceful, and ultimately terrorizing realities that have been created since the wide spread influence of “university takeover” in government, industry, education, and every other form of control possible.
The contract with our employees hired to work for this nation/ this state is:  that by your oath and affirmation, we give you this job; for the clear and absolute purpose of providing the leadership dedicated to producing the results we have agreed to as our constitution and foundation documents of this USA.  That is the purpose of your work/ that is the functional job description for which you are paid. YOU FAILED, and as a consequence to that/ your pay is removed/ your pensions and benefits are confiscated; your job is subject to criminal revue under redress of grievances.  And we the people must protect ourselves, because your work failed us all.

These fundamental trespasses against the United States, this critical treason as is not functionally protecting the citizens or nation or any other true description of what their jobs were intended to be.  The proven conspiracy of the court, and other  hierarchy in government to refuse:  “first amendment redress of grievances” to the people, as is our law.  Our guaranteed right as citizens of this USA.  The redistribution of our money: STOLEN with debts, traps, penalties, and control of every resource and every job by the university diploma.  Stolen with bonds and inflated dollars used with endless temptation, manipulation, propaganda, and controls intended:   to enslave, entrap, and steal our property as citizens of this USA.
THE REALITY IS,     We the people OWE THEM NOTHING! That means “taxes are NOT due”/ because the foundations of this nation upon which taxes are demanded: WERE CORRUPTED, CONTAMINATED WITH GREED, DISRUPTED WITH FAILURE, DESTROYED WITH THREATS: and rearranged against this people, instead of used as their defense.  That is treason.

Or more specifically, the claim for taxes (pay us money) has been proven false!   YOU DID NOT EARN THE MONEY!  YOU DID NOT DO THE JOB YOU WERE HIRED TO DO!  Thereby you are owed your day in court instead.

YOU FAILED TO PROTECT OUR MONEY!  YOU LIED CONTINUALLY ABOUT DEBTS/ AND DO NOT PROVIDE A TRUE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTING TO THE PEOPLE AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS.  YOU THREATEN NOT ONLY THIS NATION but THIS WORLD; WITH the national ignition facility, and other university experiments from which we CANNOT recover/ when their theories are proven wrong.  YOU HAVE used the military, for less than honorable intention/ rather than law, justice, and peace; the term “shock and awe” was created to instill fear. That is an illegal action, against the constitution itself.

IN US DISTRICT COURT
For the central district of IL
Urbana IL 61801

James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E.  St. Joseph IL 61873
Vs.
United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NW Washington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

dated: 12/3/10                                       trial number: 10‑2257

VALID CAUSE OF ACTION

I SEEK REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, AS IS GUARANTEED TO ME, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  Your job is to provide that legal right/ and you have NO legal opportunity to refuse.  Refusal is to deny the US CONSTITUTION rules this land/ and you are its employees.  The demand to disobey the law/ particularly the constitutional guarantees of a citizen herein:      CONSTITUTES A WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CRIMINAL ACT    Of making this US constitution invalid/ making traitorous actions in defiance of said constitution/ and adhering to the enemy:  which are those who try to defeat DEMOCRACY. 
Or more simply:    WE THE PEOPLE, own this land/ this nation/ and WE ARE “this government, in connection with our founding documents.”   You, are not the government/ you are an employee assigned to obey the law, support the constitution and defend it.  The failure to do that very thing has criminal consequences.  The intent to defeat the democracy of this USA and war against it as an enemy HAS consequences.  The reality of law is very simple: either you do obey it as written/ or you deny the law and disobey your oath of office as is sworn; and thereby does come with consequences for you.

A CONCISE AND VALID CLAIM FOR RELIEF

The utter failure that is US government today, clearly proven throughout the land/ clearly and distinctly proven by the debt load, propaganda instead of as the constitution demands TRUE AND REAL accounting for the nation; provided to the public: failed/   clear and distinct failure in protecting the children from criminal conduct, as their elders not only steal their money, but force them into absolute poverty by stripping every resource, and destroying every opportunity the future could have; because of selfishness and greed/ failed because we stand only minutes away from complete extinction by weapons of mass destruction; and the refusal to apply world law instead/ failed because the education system has proven tragic for too many/ failed because healthcare has become simple extortion/ failed because as is proven in this court: THE LAW, is not obeyed without a fight even in federal court/ failed because unemployment is too high/ failed because YOU do not RESPECT DEMOCRACY, but the employees believe they can be rulers, instead of we the people.  There are many more, including threats of extinction that are specific to ending this world.  Religion has taken over government, the reality of evolution (proven nothing), nothing more or less. Failed to protect the future.  Failed to protect the people from weapons they cannot survive.  Failed to provide redress to this date/ failed to protect the press (lost to a handful, with greed as their only decision)/ failed to protect the people that they be secured in their persons, houses, etc; “YOU, the employees, MADE THE MONEY BAD/ YOU SUPPORTED pathetic practice in banking and financial aspects of society”. Failed to protect my right of trial/ failed to protect the value of DEMOCRACY to me, and to us; with endless rhetoric and lies.  Failed by supreme court case 08‑1339 being denied by a clerk/ not a judge; which is conspiratorial treason, the direct attempt to overrule the constitution and strip from the people their democracy.  Lawyer/ Judge or not, you cannot pick and choose which law you will obey/ you will obey them, or be found guilty “an enemy of this nation”.  And it is up to the policing departments of this nation to apply the same demonstrations of power to you, as they do to us.  Failed, because your policies have made it impossible for some to avoid slavery and prostitution just to survive.  Failed because due process is a joke among the judiciary, that they believe, can simply be avoided with LIES, like “failure to state a valid claim for relief”.

A VALID WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

WE THE PEOPLE, ARE THIS GOVERNMENT!  You the employees are not.  WE THE PEOPLE ARE DUE, THE PROCESS OF LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THIS US CONSTITUTION, you have no say.  It is the law.  This democratic action rests upon the certainty:   that we have not only a right/ but a duty to defend our nation as we see fit.  That right exists as the legal remedy to take our employees to court and examine their work/ establish the change we need to have/ and determine our future for ourselves.  WE ARE THE OWNERS/ WE ARE THE DEMOCRACY/ AND WE , within the confines of constitutional law; do represent not only our nation, but its law, and that enforcement of law ourselves.   WE ARE THE JUDGE, in terms of redress of grievances/ because we are the owners coming to examine and decide what is the truth and reality of what these people have done to us, and in our name.  It is our guaranteed and inherent right of power, as we the people.  Because it is OUR NATION.  OUR DEMOCRACY.  OUR LAW!

                   SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

THIS IS a democratic action provided by the constitution of this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  The law of first amendment rights providing for the legal remedy of failure by our employees/ and the opportunity to intercede prior to even greater damage being done.  That means my legal right to inquire of this state or county:   IF THEY DO, OR DO NOT BELIEVE, it is absolutely necessary to defend this nation and ourselves by demanding an accounting, and DIRECT control of government as the law allows through this court.  IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, provided by the constitution.  It is a democratic action, which means it is my right to ask of “we the people” here/ IF THEY TOO believe it is necessary and valid to ask of the others by simple democratic due process.  The act of governing ourselves, by taking responsibility for the future from those who did not protect us;   and choosing for ourselves a new path/ defending ourselves from those whose actions are traitorous.  Because this is NOT distinctly the REDRESS TRIAL ITSELF/   BUT MERELY, THE DEMAND BY LAW, TO ENFORCE THE FIRST AMENDMENT REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, and provide the beginning of trial.  Every court in the land is entitled and instructed and demanded:   TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.  This is not national redress trial itself.   This is the beginning of redress, the foundation of democracy whereby the people themselves vote, to participate as they see fit within the laws and demands of democracy itself.  It is well within the jurisdictional guidelines of this court/ it is our guaranteed and inherent right, as citizens of this nation.  As WE THE PEOPLE.

Further demand is created, through this initial trial to establish the foundations upon which those who choose to participate by forcing trial: through the refusal to pay taxes UNTIL that law is granted/ until trial has indeed begun.  There is no intent to say, we or I shall not pay the tax.  RATHER AS IS THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY; our primary weapon against employees who refuse to obey our laws, by not enforcing redress/ is to remove their money.  The filing of taxes remains/ BUT THE PENALTY AND INTEREST associated with working for our democracy, through justice and fair legitimate actions;   are demanded to be proven.  WHAT do you intend to do/ so that we all may know!

SUMMARY

Jurisdiction is proven and without doubt.

 In the UNITED STATES   DISTRICT COURT
201 S. VINE ST,   URBANA IL 61801
http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov

TO:    JUDGE DAVID G. BERNTHAL
FROM:   JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
www.justtalking3.info
dated 1/ 28/ 11

RE:    To your text order regarding case 10‑cv‑2257 .

With regards to: the need for preliminary trial proceedings the issues most necessary to understand are.

1.  That although I have a personal stake in this lawsuit, there is an additional or equal stake in the outcome of these realities for the people of this state and nation.  Democracy means: TOGETHER WE DECIDE!  Consequently, it is with determination that I DO apply for redress of grievances according to both state and national constitutions as the means most likely to defend this democracy from its own evils.   The, “People who believe democracy means:” they can take everything/ do anything/ gamble with our lives, our nature, our everything/ and make us pay for their supposed freedom to impact, tear apart, or destroy   our lives, freedoms, and liberty with what they call their “money”.  Money has no meaning apart from humanity itself/ that means it has only the value we assign it to have; because it is “just a number”.  WE, the people;  are the money!  It is our lives, that will decide.

The test being: does,   we the people, acting within the “UNITED agreements ”, of these states and nation create a demand for us all, from that union: as owners!   OR the question arises;  is this democracy?   Did our agreement to unite as one people become:   “Just for them, that prove to have the most money”;      let the rest be slaves?

Unfair is unfair, regardless of the assumption that allowed an injustice to be.  Redress is our test, for authority as WE THE PEOPLE/ our right to demand accountability from those who “literally, work for us”.

Trial expects: the performance of redress according to the constitution; as it requires/ the balance of that decision created through the court as a legal proceeding governed by a majority rule, through the vote of each jury involved.  That the people shall have their own say regarding the governing of themselves/ and legally find their voice; WITHOUT rebellion.  That means: the court shall provide communications necessary: to establish an opportunity for the people of this state to say to this nation “we do or do not believe it is necessary to bring our employees to trial”.  A chance, to say “yes or no” to a trial that demands our employees shall IN FACT:    provide a true and accurate accounting of all matters we do so define herein AS A JURY, for this trial.   IF YES:   The court shall then ask the other respective states, through media awareness:   that do comprise this union: IF THEY AGREE!  This is our courtroom/ not yours or mine: ours! This is our trial in redress, thereby it is assigned only by the people themselves in their determination of cause and purpose, through an initiating compilation of realities:  conceived as the questions fit, to the truth: WE ARE THE OWNERS.
Determined by a jury; as to whether we go forward or not; this becomes true democracy in action.
Penalties for liars and fools intent upon leading the people astray must be severe.

2.   The establishment of this trial exceeds the demand of democracy, and become the search for criminals intent upon terrorizing our lives:    by determining if in fact the possibilities of threat, which can lead to our extinction exist.  To demand who, what, how, and why those who gamble with our lives have chosen to exceed our truth as a people: potentially establishing,  a future lost for all/ if they fail!
In other words, not only is the demand for trial subject to constitutional redress laws/ this trial expects the framework necessary to determine if : there are terrorists in our midst/ using our own money through taxes being paid,  against our lives.  The foundation of that evidence is NOT subject to “university garble”/ but develops entirely upon the consideration:   CAN WE SURVIVE THESE EXPERIMENTS, OR THEORIES GONE WRONG!   In other words, DO YOU GAMBLE WITH OUR LIVES, OUR FUTURE, OUR NATURE, OUR EVERYTHING/ or not?  It is not more complicated than that.   Can this exterminate us, even if it is “a million to one odds, or more” in our minds or not?  It is our right to determine and demand: the risk is too high/ the penalty too severe.    OUR LIVES and OUR NATION, EVERYTHING:   ARE, being risked, by university or military experiments!  Our judgment is mandatory!  Our authority is absolute!   We will decide from this point forward:   what we shall allow to be risked/ not you!

The initial test being:   can we survive bringing the same fire as is on the sun here to earth/ IF THEY ARE WRONG.  Can we survive “NATURE ON THIS PLANET” in absolute chaos, because the university played one to many times: two arms/ two legs/ a brain;   ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is at risk/ because of their mutilations?  PROVE what is real/ no theories allowed to suggest “we can do anything we want”/ IT IS NOT SO. And more.

Trial expects: that for every threat, every accounting of reality and risk:   there shall be an answer from the university, military, or other as is necessary to distinguish and identify the truth.  THE FAILURE TO RESPOND IN FULL/ DEMANDS A COMPLETE SHUTDOWN OF THIS CONCEIVED OF RISK.  THE PERMANENT REMOVAL OF ALL ASSOCIATED POSSIBILITIES.
This trial is intended to establish the decision to seek redress for the nation/ so that the nation decides for itself:   rather than determine the risk for them.  They shall choose/ and live with the result; no exceptions.  Therefrom the actions in court preceding that decision of redress are limited to the pronouncement of risk or threat to life or nation: NO GAMES/ NO RELIGION/ NO UNPROVEN THEORY; none of it.  Facts alone that are established by truth shall decide.  The religion called evolution is evicted/ as they have proven nothing of value.   In this redress trial: we the people, are the jury/ we are the experts who shall decide what is true for this nation!

IN US DISTRICT COURT
For the central district of IL
Urbana IL 61801

James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E.  St. Joseph IL 61873
Vs.
United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NW Washington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

dated: 11/15/10                                       trial number: 10‑CV‑2257 

It takes first amendment REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES before this entire nation:   TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, and cause to believe any tax beyond this moment;  should not be rejected/ should not be refused. Until such time as the law, “called WE THE PEOPLE, own this nation (as is redress)”:    is kept.  Taxes are refused.

The constitution grants first amendment law/ guarantees citizen rights provided by THIS constitution: SHALL BE HONORED, and legitimately KEPT!  Or there is no legitimate form of American government to claim the reward of taxes/ or insist, none can refuse it!   PROVE IT IS NOT SO!  Is that not what court is for?  To prove the guaranteed rights of a citizen of this United States SHALL indeed receive what the constitution promises in the form of redress of grievances:  OUR RIGHT TO BE OWNERS/ TO PROVE “we the people” SHALL RULE OURSELVES! Is the courts job, not to prove:  OUR EMPLOYEES  shall be “at all times amenable to them”; as stated in the bill or rights?  PROVE this is not so.

dated: 11/26/10                                       trial number: 10‑2257

ARGUMENT BEGINS: 

Table of contents
page 1     The reality of this trial
page 2     Table of contents
page 3;    GRANTED and established by the immediacy and horrendous threat we face.
Page 4:   DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE ACTIONS by the court, to protect this nation
page 5      the cause and consequence of trial/ argument begins

page 5‑6     The demand to “exterminate our risks”
page 6    Respect for our lives, and our law
THESE REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
page 8‑11           The most immediate threat
page 11‑15           The second most immediate threat
page 15‑20          The third most extreme threat we face

THESE REQUIRE SECONDARY ATTENTION,                                                                            immediately following  resolution of the first three
Subsection                        Threat
page 21             1                 the threat called healthcare
page 21              2                 the threat called   antibiotic livestock feeds

page 22              3                The threat called antiseptic/ and poison
page 22              4               Factory ships on the ocean
page 22              5                Over population
page 23              6               Our pollinators are dying
page 23              7               Our water supplies are being robbed and destroyed
page 24              8                Oxygen is being consumed beyond its possible replenishment for fire
page 24              9                Oxygen production in the ocean is dying
page 24             10               Ocean destruction will leave one billion people starving. The coming                                               world war
page 25             11               Our economy prepares us for civil war
page 26              12              We cannot sustain resource depletion/ it means “we are dead”.
page 26              13               Immense wars against life, on our earth, have been created
page 26              14               Weapons of mass destruction IS A DECISION we the people shall                                               make

page 27              15              The US supreme court and its defendants in 08‑1339 deny the law.                                               liars exist in government and media.
page 27               16             Evolution is nothing, but a religion/ which has invaded and                                                         controlled this government illegally.            
page 28                              ARGUMENT BEGINS
The development of who is to blame, begins with the university                                                 diploma/ are they NOT in charge?           The alternative is as                                                              WE   THE PEOPLE:     CHOOSE the law.
page 30                                  EMINENT DOMAIN
page 31                                 The actions of our employees in all forms of government are                                                   required to protect this people. 
page 32                                 This trial is RISK to our lives:      not science and theory! The                                                burden of proof, is upon those who wish to risk our lives, IN FUL L                                                AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE.
Page 33                  Our right as a nation, to decide:   by public vote on the real issues of life. 

  dated: 11/26/10                                       trial number: 10‑2257

ARGUMENT BEGINS: 

Which means:  Either we are,
“DEMOCRACY, we the people, FOR REAL”/ or we are not.                            There is no middle ground.
Either the people are rulers here, the sovereign authority of this nation/ OR not.     It’s a choice/     Make your decision!

WE Do Demand:   that our policing agencies shall in fact create the necessary acceptance of their duty/ bringing the guilty, before the people.  Those who threaten/ lie/ cheat/ steal/ manipulate/ control without rights/ and fail to obey their oaths. WE DEMAND;   our right, TO REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES/ ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Redress is a legal right/ the first amendment is the law that provides “power to the people/ to demand we are owners, and shall be accounted to:  by our employees”.  Democracy means:   that true and real authority is entirely ours, and no one else/ we are the owners, & this is our nation!
That action by the police, the military, all leaders, and the courts in unison: in the presentation of this “redress trial” to WE the people.   IS then required. With the advertizing necessary, to insure all,  the people know!  That a state jury chosen by random, shall decide if this decision to demand true authority, and accountability from  our employees shall proceed, or not/ is the only fundamental required to begin the process.  Redress is built from the people up!  It is not descended down from the top.

If YES, the people of this state agrees. The trial as filed, must then be presented to each subsequent state for their own decision. Majority rules both for redress in this state, or in this nation.  Redress for this state or nation, IS a serious matter/ no place to hide: YOU become responsible for your decision.  If no, this case is over, for the litigant representing it.  Any majority of states who do agree among themselves by a majority of their own people.  Bringing redress forward for themselves.  SHALL reinstate that or any subsequent trial, as they demand by vote.

THIS US COURT TRIAL:   IS NOT PURELY REDRESS!  THIS TRIAL CONFRONTS THE COURT WITH THEIR OWN DECISION TO PROTECT US FROM TERRORISTS,     OR NOT!  This trial constructs a redress trial, as our right to protect ourselves because of the threat that emanates from the potential destruction of our lives and even our planet. THIS TRIAL, is of immediate consequence/ and CANNOT be dismissed or delayed:   because of the potential for death and destruction in this nation.  WE DO DEMAND THIS REDRESS TRIAL, because the court, our leaders, the media, and university HAVE FAILED to protect our lives.  It is not an option: without the term TRAITOR proven to arise!

IN US DISTRICT COURT
For the central district of IL
Urbana IL 61801

James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E.  St. Joseph IL 61873
Vs.
United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,

950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NWWashington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

dated: 12/20/10                                       trial number: 10‑2257

PLAINTIFF REPLIES
RE: the defendants response in regard to motion for judgment asserts: “I don’t understand/ nothing valid, nothing concise/ no rights or guarantees afforded by the constitution/ and this court, this judge is not obligated to enforce, obey, honor, or respect constitutional law.  Cannot uphold his or her sworn oath of office/ because the attorney says “no jurisdiction” to obey the law, or provide the guarantees of our Democracy called the constitution; by himself.  Indeed no judge & no litigant gets to assume control over the constitution.  Rather a judge must obey the law/ and a litigant must obey this Democracy: “we are owners/ NOT you”, or in this case “me”.
This attorney asserts “no merit to constitutional law/ or democratic decree:
The legal demand for constitutional guarantees, as is the first amendment right called redress of grievances. Is not a game.  This is a question before the court, answer yes or no.

 This case is nothing more or less, than a primary foundation built upon this guarantee of redress/ and the democracy of this United States of America which guarantees it to each and every citizen.  This is a conclusion of fact before the court, answer yes or no.

 What the people then decide, IN REDRESS;   makes them WE THE PEOPLE/ instead of you, a judge: “them, who think they be, the rulers”.  This is a conclusion of democracy before the court, answer yes or no.  Democracy is the law, answer yes or no.
This case demands the law shall be upheld, by every citizen; and in particular those employed to HONOR the constitution as LAW.  This is a conclusion of law before the court, answer yes or no.

This attorney believes there is something frivolous about enforcement of the law!  Guaranteed constitutional rights!  Due process of law, the gift of this democracy to me, its citizen.  Indicative of the training and teaching established by a law degree/ the reality of “school” comes to derision. The truth of a university teaching rebellion against the people, and their constitution comes forward; as an act of treason.

IN US DISTRICT COURT
For the central district of IL
Urbana IL 61801

James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E.  St. Joseph IL 61873
Vs.
United States of America

Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC  20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530‑0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NW Washington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

dated: 1/ 7/ 11                                       trial number: 10‑2257

AMENDED COMPLAINT

LET IT hereby be known, that in the interest of justice, democracy, duty, and honor:   the foundations of constitutional law as are being tested here in this courtroom.  I  Accept and declare that it is within the best interest of WE THE PEOPLE of this state called ILLINOIS, and this nation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, be included in this trial.  Having the same rights, is without doubt:   as this is the law of redress on trial.  The foundation of our relationship as owners, to those we employ to do our business of government.

The purpose of trial here, is to enforce the law/ and provide legal redress of grievances to these people and to myself.  NOT by my actions/ but because it is the law.  THE LAW is not subject to discretion/ it is compulsory!  That means, NO JUDGE, in this state or this nation has a right to reinterpret this law in any form other than what it distinctly meant for us, “we the people” as both state and nation.  It is a felony offense, to steal our laws/ and there is absolutely NO IMMUNITY from penalty in those actions.  There is in fact a guaranteed penalty, due to the oath of office required of those whose deliberate job is to enforce that very law, without menacing it!

We have come to the point of trial, wherein it is clear: the foundation of each argument has been tested/ the reality of viewing, as is the truth of our democracy and the honor of our judiciary showing/ and the clear need for intervention as is the purpose of redress has been established for both state and nation.  That means it is now “our trial, as we the people”/ RATHER than the listed plaintiff/ appellee;   James Frank Osterbur.  Therein this formal notice of change, has been defined/ the creation of deliberate inclusion for the purpose of democracy in action, as we the people: FUNDAMENTALLY PROVEN a right of this people.
I the plaintiff/ appellee:   James Frank Osterbur do hereby relinquish the full and complete right of “joint trial” to “we the people, of this state and nation; as is their right in pursuance of the laws, guarantees, and fundamental constitutional ownership owed.  Their destiny as a people, called the legal right of:   first amendment, redress of grievances/ state guaranteed legal redress as well.

Joint trial means:   with full legal rights and responsibilities, for the pursuit of justice, ownership authority, and democracy;  through the guarantees of our constitution.  That will include the right to provide or submit their own lawyers as would be fitting to this trial, within the guidelines of redress, and all it can mean.  BUT IT WILL NOT include a greater right than is mine, James Frank Osterbur:   the primary plaintiff/ unless killed.  Yours is to inherit the guaranteed rights of constitutional law.  Mine is to establish the fundamental  foundations, purpose, and desire as it seems legally clear and personally necessary to do.  There is no compromise, the constitutional law of both state and nation,  is the law. For the state of IL

To: department of the treasury/ IRS
Brookhaven service center: IRS box 480 mail stop 660 Holtsville   NY 11742‑0480
From: James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E.  St. Joseph IL 61873

dated 8/17/10

re: letter sent notice number CP71C   date August 16, 2010
caption: reminder you owe past due taxes for 2005
principle   owed $8464.00 
your statement with interest and penalties $12,424.16

MY REPLY:
With utter contempt for the law, the rights of a citizen/ due process of law, and the foundation that is a courtroom in the nation called Democracy:   yours, is a hate letter, to me.

Not because the taxes in 2005 were paid/ they were not, due to it is the only way to bring this government into court (because it worships money alone). Taxes withheld: were for the singular purpose of developing and defending the legal right for first amendment redress of grievances: a trial demanding accountability before this nation, by its leaders.  With the nation itself, called WE THE PEOPLE;   as the owners who do have a right.
During this time of corruption clearly identified throughout the period since 2005: there has been, denial of the US constitution by the court/ CRITICAL AND REAL TREASON BY THE US SUPREME COURT/ open rebellion and absolute refusal by the court system to:
OBEY THE LAW!
WHICH IS, redress of grievances for the people through law/ whereby we exercise our guaranteed right of ownership and ultimate authority over those employed, who do act to,  govern our lives.

Throughout this process you have been provided the opportunity and demand: to take me to PUBLIC  court!  Whenever you did so desire/ and you have refused.  Thereby there are NO PENALTIES OR INTEREST WARRANTED.  And none will be paid.  You, the employees of this nation; have not fulfilled your sworn duty to uphold the constitution/ which deliberately means: you have no right to collect taxes, UNTIL that reality of law is compiled with for the people of this nation. You as an affiliated organization with, or of the US GOVERNMENT, by employment therein,  are again instructed:

The clear constitutional right, the mock trial by denial of constitutional law, the rebellion against this democracy called WE THE PEOPLE, and the plundering of our lives by absolute irresponsibility and denial of duty through the leadership of this nation which does include you.  Are issues that must be addressed legally and in open court: BEFORE ANY TAXATION IS DUE.  The constitution gives you NO right to steal/ yet we have been “ravaged from coast to coast, by the failure of leadership/ the foolishness and contempt of those who have ruined a great deal, for millions of citizens/ and the outright murderous intent of those who chose to create extreme threats against our lives, our nation, and our world:   GAMBLING with everything WE OWN.  At their own whim, playing god & choosing death for us all.  As are experiments choosing to attempt to bring the same fire as is on the sun here to earth/ mutilating nature in its every life form/ and choosing to cooperate with those who wish (by their own words) to re‑create the single most destructive event in the history of the UNIVERSE, right here on earth.

dated: 2/ 18 / 11                                      trial number: 10‑2257

 PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CLARIFY

 ARGUMENT

In the paradigm that is law and truth, the essence of social justice.   Establishing the framework that is then society at its most basic level of existence: refers to the fact without law, there is only chaos.  That means for harmony and peace to exist, the future to be sustained;   we MUST do our best to create and perform the law,  by our truth as a nation, expressed in ways that honor reality..
This functional case for America and me/ establishing this,  redress of grievances/ IS,  a constitutional guarantee to each citizen of this nation and state! Which;  Gives the judiciary no cause or reason for interpretation of a law that is plain and simple/ it is NOT discretionary, nor is it vague or insignificant.  Redress, is the law of democracy, the foundation upon which we the people depend/ when all else has proven to be contemptuous, lies, or against this society; by the governing branch of our authority as a democracy/ the employees authorized to work for us, and make decisions within the confines of our declared written direction for the nation.   Whether by true intent or not, that we as a nation, are failing:   the critical matter before us all is the health and sanctity of the nation, in this trial the financial future itself of every child, and every life dependent upon our choice.

The constitutional LAW of redress,   says:    If we arise as “we the people” under the law, rather than with weapons/   to discover and perform our most basic test of ownership.  The right to say no more of this,  as we the people!   Simply by our vote, for the nation itself/ rather than employees who work for us/ voting in our stead: then we gain the courtroom of redress.  We become the owners as democracy allows.     That purpose being: to UNDERSTAND WITHOUT THE CONSEQUENCE OF LIES, DECEIT, OR FAILURE; the truth of our economic lives.   These, our employees DO OWE us all,  an accounting for what they have done/ because the evidence is real, the cause is just.  And every life including mine has been affected, when the reality of our currency comes under the question of truth.   As owners, we demand the truth of our reality/ more simply we/ I demand the clear and certain knowledge of what has been done to my money, my future, my life, by the failure of our employees to properly adhere to the constraints and purposes of constitutional instruction!  OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, it has come to our attention as the people of this state or nation: that the truth of what is or is not our securities, our work, our future, our nation, our lives, our everything MUST BE KNOWN.  The trust is gone, which means ONLY THE FACTS, will do/ guaranteed in a courtroom as true.
These things called money, currently represent our lives/ my life and future. Therefore In its entirety, for the singular purpose of understanding the relationship we must own with our future:   because I like all other workers are expected to pay with our lives/ with the sacrifice of our time/ with servitude, rather than choice.  If the money is bad/ I shall NOT spend my life working for it.  If the money is bad (undeniably without a base or substantial foundation, in reality) then I owe NOT taxes paid to the employees who did choose to wreak and disgrace us all.  Redress means we choose to know the truth and decide for ourselves as a nation, the life we must or will lead.
Or more simply, this case represents the legal right to demand:   NO MORE LIES, TELL US ALL THE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.   Reveal the entire economic structure and accounting for this nation/ its states/ and its citizens.   I/ we demand to know it all, so that whatever can be done: as is bankruptcy (the return of our money from those called the rich) will be done.  Life is not a game/ and we are not your toys!

Redress, the foundation of law in support of democracy itself, allows “we the people” to accelerate the legal question: DID OUR EMPLOYEES, disobey our laws?   So that each may understand and form his or her own opinion as to the duty we owe each other, this nation, and these children: to protect ourselves/ if it is proven our employees rebelled; or just didn’t care enough to protect our lives or economic future.  What we then do by vote among ourselves, as a nation:   shall be our reward.  Either the repair and rebuilding of a future/ or its demise and failure as a society.   Because that, will be our truth/ NOT the reality of leaders who have forced us to fail.
That is by its intent, clearly the purpose of redress of grievances: that we should know/ through our day in court, the truth of our situation in this time; and then choose the path we desire.  Rather than simply come to a day when civil war is imminent.    Thereby the relationship we share with or without a future for our lives; becomes our own decision, as a nation.  The review of our authority as a democracy, is established by bringing the leaders to trial and accounting as is necessary.  It is not too much to ask/ it is the law.  This is about our lives, future, world, and children;  it cannot be less than our decision.  This is DEMOCRACY:         “WE CHOOSE, to rule ourselves”!

THE DEFENDANTS