a number of the links are not working on this page, however the case files are at the bottom first trial is last/ they are called items so edit for an item and it will show the trial
A DISCUSSION IN REALITY
Understand this clearly: it is not my desire to be,"like princess diana", I do not intend to be hounded, and driven by the "ravenous needs", of the press, the religious, or others to an insane disrespect for my life or other lives. If you fail to find your courtesy, politeness, or the dignity owed to me: by respecting the simple truth, I deserve reasonable treatment: YOU can be sued, you are therefore warned [my life, my body, my time and so on, belong to me/ and you may not sell them, or use them as you wish: these are mine/ the "news" are the words (anything else is mine)]. These matters are necessary; therefore it is a duty, NOT a matter of desire, but a reality destined to interfere beyond its own boundaries, into all life. To a degree, "I am interfering in your life/ therefore you will interfere in mine: BUT UNDERSTAND RESPECT", before unfortunate decisions must be made. There is NO question in my mind and experience, that life will change/ therefore no possibility exists but to explain the destinies being chosen for us, by selfishness & pride, and defend honesty and honor as better. YOU may disagree/ but reality will prove what is true: can you accept being wrong/ there is no return, from extinction/ there is this choice and how many more? IF you are late "by one second", life is over for everyone. PROVE ME WRONG! To the people who demand to gamble: "I will ask of you in court/ to defend your choice, by putting up your assets [ALL OF THEM] and we will gamble with your life: lose and your destitute." To the people who demand evolution: "I WILL ask of you in court, to defend your position and demonstrate, from your own body, "EXACTLY what part do you think, you can live without"/ THEN you may begin by scientific methods to describe how bodies exist without these parts. To the people who demand genetic genocide: " I WILL ask of you, to mirror the relationship man has with life, and then demand the level of devastation that can occur. IF YOU LIE, the people of the world will see/ then if you fail to stop, the people of the world will remember. YOU WILL BE SORRY!
CASE REVIEW
This case file, assembles documentation of real life experience/ rather than
the propaganda and various lies of american ideology/ this is how it is, as a
common citizen, to the lair of wolves, called judicial, or more simply: the
judiciary, has been deceived into thinking, it is a judge/ the law is judge,
and it stands alone in this: the representative of the people, is for justice/
not simply an arbitrary law, but the realization, people are more important,
than law. Therefore each trial is expanded from its simple beginning to the
basis & foundation of critical discussion/ the purpose being, to elaborate
the procedure, to assess the truth, and define with accuracy the claims and
guarantees of the american court and its government, as it defines the legal reality
of citizenship .NO ONE was tempted, only questions were asked, and options
presented/ the decisions each made, are their own. Which now brings reality and
the deception of a right, to its critical analysis: where does a right, exceed
an obligation/ where does freedom surrender to discipline, because it is
necessary/ where does order constitute an enforceable demand/ and where does
independence, assign itself to the definition of others? These simple concepts
are presented in real world situations, and used to create an appropriate
discussion, for this day. Therefore the purpose of each trial does NOT exist as
common expressions of won or lost/ but work significantly as a process of
filtration, to identify, & thereby correct, Hidden agenda/ common failure/
& simple arrogance. Accusation will occur, as to a Hidden agenda, within my
relation to these trials/ BUT IT IS NOT TRUE. The questions and constant
descriptions of fair play, duty, & justice, do not constitute a hidden
agenda/ they ARE assertion of right! The words used throughout these trials are
merely The terms used to measure these simple truths for you/ they are not
personal, but procedural. Having declared the function of this simple review/
to the dimensions of common everyday life as a citizen of this country: a
proper warning is given as to critical review; the process of actual
prosecution, as it develops from evidence to fact/ from fact to penalty and so
on; is not used herein [even though indications exist, that prosecution may
actually occur]. Those who are actual participants will select whether a
discussion is sufficient/ or in the alternative, expressions which demand
answers rather than seek solutions are to be used. The public is hereby
reprimanded to fully & clearly understand the facts, NOT pass judgment
until necessary, and remember/ my statements in regard to these cases
constitute only one side & one description/ you shall wait for theirs!
Remember the truth, that each of the people presented here believed, in the
courtroom door was shut, that public supervision would not exist, and like you
(all people): decisions behind closed doors are often NOT the same as with
direct public supervision. It is a lack of public supervision that is then
responsible/ and that exists due to a lack of public Power to influence. The
Dentist trial: look in case abstract/ dentist folder
1) is a response to inappropriate
treatment
2) is a clear & certain warning.
3) Identifies a deteriorating society
10) The court is taken to task [this is written for this use, and not presented in trial
11) The dentist lawyer responses, [and its review for this use by me: the dentist appeal was not used in court]
City controversy
(city court is the title, no court date used/ the outcome was simply beyond doubt/ irregardless of right or wrong: the lawyers would win).
[This is the development of beneficial regulation, culminating in a simple expectation of power, without a right, over the citizen. The city board did do responsibly/ NOT the city officials.]
city court visits the destruction of freedom, by the reality of an irresponsible official.
City court, NOT "legal court", simply argument based upon legal & illegal actions ; is the reality of unfair bias against the citizen, as a city official is allowed, " to Play with my life as a toy.
City letter, Quibbles, in my opinion, about their being deaf.
Selimi trial appeal
Basic fundamental life and property demands
Preliminaries to trial
contract ; the document governing all contractual legal descriptions and decisions
lawsuit containing basic facts, monetary demands, & the law
selimi lawyer, motion to dismiss
court discussion of basic personal, social, & judicial obligations, as they apply to this situation.
Testimony, the basis of law, & penalties
Questions to be presented in court
The ONLY legal document produced in accord with the court/ NO further response, not even a judgmental decree/ NOTHING.
Symbolizes the futility of ANY expectation of assistance! Every citizen pay the extortion of the court or fights alone. Extortion is the price of Their justice/ NOT the inherent & guaranteed rights as described by the constitution/ BUT, the pathetic & debilitating disease, which is the american court system, and the government which defends no one.
These pleadings ARE the critical change, from a participating judicial litigant, to the demands of change as represented by this "trial of life". The purpose reflects the basis of evidence & contempt surrounding the selimi trial, and says Where is the justice?
THE FOLLOWING two trials are interwoven, for the purpose
of a deliberate affront to the judiciary/ they see the name, and understand the decision of honor or the decision of disrespect, and it comes again [ therefore they do reinforce their stance for or against]. As a compromise, the demands are allowed a minimal support: development is for the purpose of procedure, and the understanding of basic reality. These are then position statements of the United States Judiciary, from its lowest office to its highest. The reality is necessary, because the court is "not inclined" to make such statements of fact/ a written declaration means: they must then support, or they can be attacked as wrong, or as insufficient for the work, and so on: it is easier to hide. These statements of fact, are then used to describe what the court admits: they will NOT defend these things! It is now up to the nation of people, to decide, if they want these judges, and this court (as it is).
The court WILL suggest harassment/ but I tell you, these people affect all our lives, and it is necessary to obtain the basis and foundation of their decisions, that we may understand and defend ourselves. YOU may say to them "good job" if you wish/ I say to them; YOU are lacking and must change or be removed: majority rules.
The first case will be read as a billing dispute with a hospital, wherein the treatment was without doubt poor, and the billing was high. MY intent was to arbitrate the price, due to the service as described.
The second case will be read as a judgment dispute, wherein a judge allows 18 months of use, by the defendant, on a car bought from me: he gives her the car, and makes me pay more than I received in payment for the car.
These two are expanded to develop the judicial position of the court in matters expressed between the public and medicine/ and the citizen and the court [where are my rights]. As the judiciary refuses to defend law, cannot understand the request for justice, and whines "I am the judge, I determine the law". The expansion continues to examine the fundamental truth of basic guarantees particularly of a fair and impartial judiciary. The concept of constitutional basis in law is "laughed at", the lives lost in the battle for justice and freedom "spit upon", and the critical analysis of simple refines the accusation of inappropriate actions to a rebellion of the court against the people and the nation. Citizens have aided and abetted these problems by demanding of the judiciary, "things they must not"/ and the consequence of this day, is a court on trial, for the purpose of true change, and a charge against the people [either accept your responsibility, to identify the limits and purposes of the judiciary, by majority rule/ or accept their failures]. This is a demand for true acceptance of constitutional declaration ."....to form a more perfect union.........and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity....." IT WILL require change! Therefore the question to you, is "what does independence mean/ what is true freedom worth/ & will you sell liberty, to lies"?
Cases are:
The United States Supreme court appeal/ turned away by the clerk of the court/ correspondence as follows:
Initiating papers, as do all files, represent a
common citizen request for justice. I write the
I write U.S.C.A. is guilty of treasonable conduct
I demand judicial intervention / NOT a return to the judges I accuse of treason
a complaint contributed by the facts
For the purposes of better public understanding
This federal court of appeals 94_1944/ is a case development, about fundamental constitutional beliefs by the citizenry
the court is reprimanded to adhere to
constitutional right
redress of grievances introduced
the court is asked to
explain the limits of inherent & inalienable right
an explanation by me of inherent & inalienable rights
denial in the form of lies (the support without foundation)/ & theft (they steal my/ our right to trial)
This federal court of appeals 94_1943/ begins as an assault upon the court system, recognizing that more is to be required than simple assertions/ reasons are expected
the beginning assault , applied as a structural movement away from the norm
the composite description of a social need for justice and true constitutional involvement
court orders include treason / not only the denial of a duty, but the purpose of tyranny.
the treason of dismissal without cause / the use of lies
the court moves to erase
the evidence
The federal case 94_2060 is a developing redress of grievances against the monopoly of the medical industry against the citizen, it is structured to assault the basis of a billing practice, that does not include ANY patient rights
developing the argument for redress
medicine and the bill of rights
review of the stated judicial position
The federal case 94_2001 examines the right of a judge in our courtroom, and the need for supervision.
The writ of right/ reviewed cases
outcry for justice/ due process
summarized
pleadings & memorandum
condensed pleading/
contested immunity/ constitutional guarantees
the court replies / no basis
for complaint/ the judicial official is entitled to absolute immunity
court declares
"rambling, incoherent, and without basis/ denied"
The state supreme court of Illinois is asked/ do you care?
State supreme case 76450 is the appeal of medical billing and the absence of law/ therefore the absence of right within the court.
State supreme case 76128 is the appeal of inappropriate actions by the judge, and presents the questions of judicial immunity
a
test of duty/ a question of justice/ a demand for fair & equal treatment
The state of
State appeals 4_93_ 0847 presents the medical billing questions
a message to the court of medical realities and the preliminary definitions of constitutional duty
attorney motion to
dismiss for procedural infractions
court denies
State appeals 4_93_0441 presents the definitions of court failures
court demands compliance with one
rule, dismisses with other rules
The circuit court of champaign
constitutions does not allow exclusive controls
establishing the reality of exclusive control
establishing medical controls the court/ not judicial intervention, judicial impotency (judge is not at fault)
the absolute nature of medical monopoly
the charge of constitutional guarantees , does support my claim to judicial intervention
motion to dismiss for procedural infractions
cause denied for lack of law
The circuit court of champaign county, IL, case 92_1561: the initiating cause to demand mediation between the medical entity and me.
The amount in question is presented as small claims/ the court demands amend/ social security act imposed as last resort to demand mediation
motion establishing the intent to confuse & thereby manipulate
The circuit court of champaign county, IL case 92_ Is a car warranty case wherein the court pursues, a distinct bias/ be it noted, I did not prod the judge until he leaned back, took off his shoes, put his feet on the desk, and closed his eyes. (we were the only case presenting in court, at that time). After slight questioning (should I continue/ are you awake)/ there was NO doubt as to the ending of this trial.
Essentially began as a warranty case 18 months after this person bought the 10 year old car from me/ she got the car, and more money than she originally paid, and 18 months of use.
Judicial inquiry board of
The insertion of IRS controversy merely applies the reality of our social contract with the government extends to their behaviors. their reply
Not included but of interest, is the problem of public harassment/ the city
of
ITEM #1
To Dr. Barry Howell 2/02/02
From James Osterbur
RE: the billing and evaluation received,
due to the appointment attended by jim on 12/27/01
_
In response to said billing the following
determines the time and method of payment
A: I waited 3 months for you to create an
opening for me/ while it is true I could have gone elsewhere, AT your
guarantee, that this appointment would be for the purpose of my call/ repair of
a broken tooth, I did choose to wait.
it is expensive to attempt to find any
dentist as there is always the $100.00 billing for nothing (we need this for
our records). The assumption of at least limiting this expense, was as usual
brushed aside for, the evaluation and NO treatment of any kind as was provided
to me. You explained I needed dental work/ I was aware.
B: After waiting 3 months for an
appointment wherein I did expect to be treated with a minimum of respect. I am
told that it would be an additional 4 months before any treatment could be
expected, and further that it would be July and countless other appointments
before I would actually get most NOT all of the problems solved.
It is fair to say that the granting of an
appointment means a reasonable expectation to the service expected within what
anyone else in society would expect to receive. This is a medical matter and as
a consequence does have penalties, for failure to respond appropriately as
needed. While it is true, this is my responsibility to care for my own teeth.
It is your responsibility, to NOT aggravate the situation by unreasonable and
unwarranted actions. YOU are also responsible for any additional deterioration
as becomes present. YOU selected to give the appointment, I did not force you
to do so. YOU selected to NOT do any work, as would be expected by any normal American
citizen. YOU selected the time table, and the length of time necessary to get
the work done/ by providing no more than one filling per visit, when I asked
for 3 filings per visit, as that is the norm in these situations.
C: I did not beg or plead, you elected to
give the appointment, and I expected a reasonable professionalism with regard
to your acceptance of my request for dental services. YOU have not properly
carried through with a reasonable respect for the duties between a patient and
a doctor.
If no appointment had been given, I would
simply have looked elsewhere. No harm done. The lack of respect for me,
initiates the consideration of a legal response, prejudice and discrimination
would be included. This means you will be required to defend Athis is a common
and ordinary practice in your business, an expectation of the common patient/
in situations where cash in advance was offered.A However at this time, I
merely inform you that the billing sent will receive an appropriate similar
respect to that given me. I will intend to pay it, at least the film work in
December of 2002, this will be in consideration of the 9 months you selected to
make me wait. Plus the 3 additional months required to actually begin the work,
which means it would be 9 months before part of the work would be done, from
the initiating call. If you send billing before December of 2002, add fines or
interest/ it is very likely that I will take the necessary steps to file a
legal matter. The intent is not to collect/ rather the purpose would be, to
inform you, in real terms, that we all do deserve a reasonable respect in this
life, and to inform the public, that this is the norm, in your office and they
should in fact expect such treatment from you/ in the matter of discrimination,
it is not how you perceive yourself or others / it is how you respond. I do
hope you learn better!
D: I have not yet searched for another
dentist, your lawyer will find this useful. However I may not, as would be the
clear & certain expectation of your behaviors. Instead, I will tell you
that the appointments given, will not be canceled by me, you seem to need room
in your scheduling, If I do not call or show up prior to one hour of the
appointed time you may give it to someone else. If you do schedule me out due
to this letter and I am in fact depending upon you / then I will surely sue
you.
IN REVIEW; THIS PRELIMINARY
LETTER PROVIDES A FAIR APPRAISAL TO THE SITUATION. IT asserts a clear and
certain future response, and gives an understandable warning of consequence.
The defendant prefers to ignore.
ITEM #2
TO JBH
FORM JAMES OSTERBUR
02/13/02
Re: TO REAFFIRM
As distinctly stated in
the letter sent to you, section D last line/ BECAUSE YOU INSIST in this matter,
we will be going forward with the lawsuit.
As indicated I am busy,
and have no use for this, it is an irritant but it seems necessary. Therefore
it will be weeks or months before formal pleadings arrive, as I have other
things to do.
As to the rest of your
letter, Amy expectations are the very same
as everyone else=s. That is the point of the
lawsuit. YOUR office policies & procedures are exactly, what the
presentation of trial evidence will be about. And you will be asked to define
to the court, EXACTLY what those procedures & policies are. The treatment
of a patient in particular in clear & certain terms, of the type and
description that will be used in court and will be used in media. The cause of
discrimination, exists as the critical reality of an expectation of this
patient for treatment. The promise of that treatment by the procurement of an
appointment for the purpose of a broken tooth (the information given, during
the request). The lack of treatment, you did nothing of value to or for me,
merely handed me a bill and said Ayou need dental work@/ I KNEW THAT. I waited 3 months for the opportunity to
have that dental work, at least started. The reality of an additional 4 months
prior to the actual work being started adds up to a 7 month wait to repair a
broken tooth/ further unlike other patients I am given a total of 11 more
appointment, for 14 cavities ending on July 16 /02. This is 4 months of
appointments and roughly 500 miles of driving, and at least 20 hours of my
time. I would not complain about the appointment if it were not for the delay,
7 months is too long!
The reality of this
treatment is viewable as an A84 dollar@ charge, connected to another 4
month wait/ which almost no one would do/ constitutes an attempt at larceny. As
the time may be viewed as a direct attempt to force me elsewhere, and charge me
for nothing. I did make the trip to your office, at your acceptance of the
work, I did set-aside time for that work to be done, and wait for the
treatment; all to be refused, Aanything, that the common patient would deem reasonable.@
Perhaps you have patients,
who would wait, for 7 months after calling with a broken tooth? PRODUCE THEM in
court/ remembering this is a trial for RESPECT. And its purpose is Atruth in advertising, a no
obligation, no liability, no slander@ method of determining how best I should advertise Afor you@.
You could have regretted
your treatment of me, as inappropriate, an error in judgment/ could have stated
the problem was a Amis-communication@ with your staff/ you could have
sought a reasonable solution such as Aoffering to remove the 84 dollar billing, at a minimum/
arranging another dentist Adue to an unyielding schedule/ you could have presented the matter in a
forum for discussion.@ You did none of these. Instead you
create a purpose for your actions as Aquality dental services, in a professional manner@, and as a consequence, MUST PROVE
EXACTLY what you mean by that. IF my own treatment does not fall within these confines,
the penalty listed in the previous letter applies. You describe these matters
as your own behaviors (letter)
The consequence of your
actions may produce additional cause: quote Aafter consulting with representatives of the IL state
dental association@ we feel/ unquote. Therefore the
policies and practices of these also come into view. The question will be Aidentify in clear & significant
terms, exactly how and why you believe this is Aprofessional treatment/ a treatment for the masses.
They will get a letter of invitation to court. You are requested to send their
address to me.
This is now a legal
matter, that will require time and effort/ without doubt an appeal by one of us
and is thereby likely to become a 3 year ordeal. The consequence of this work,
the certainty of you trying to apply lawyer fees to me if I would lose, and the
simple reality YOU CAUSED THE WORK to be done, all state an expense shall be
added to the lawsuit, as it becomes definable; what would be fair.
See you in court.
James F. Osterbur
In this letter, the
defendant is given the choice, to refine his decision in the terms he feels
significantly identifies his right, to the money. Failing that, the
presentation in court of a long and drawn out trial & appeal are facing him
with the costs associated. The plaintiff states; Adon=t want to/ it is not my desire/ however if you insist,
to court we go.
ITEM #3
RETYPED/ ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC VERSION LOST
TO THE COURT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191 CR 2500E
CASE # 02-l-126
V.
J.BARRY HOWELL, DDS
(OFFICE) 1209 E. COLORADO
RE: In the matter of property, assigned within this dispute as a fundamental constitutional right, designated by amendment 14, noted as the right of due process. And the fundamental existence of justice, as depicted within the terms, you must do the work, "to earn the billing".
IN BRIEF: this dentist did cause the plaintiff Osterbur, to believe that dental work would be done, upon a scheduled visit to Howell. The work was not received/ the dentist therein created the impetus for this trial, subsequently betrayed a professional confidence by selecting a time for actual treatment as yet another 4 months away. When the plaintiff had already waited 3 months for the initial visit/ fully expecting the broken tooth as was the complaint and purpose of the visit to be done at the first visit. The assumption and demand by Howell that this is customary and fair is EXCUSED by the plaintiff and argued Blatant Discrimination, and unfair as Howell expects to be paid for deliberately selecting to solicit my business and then refusing to work, and pretending this 7 months is common and normal practice (everybody does it, and no one complains) or he must subject himself to the consequences. Those consequences are, a deliberate and skillful effort to inform the public of a business (his) which believes, a billing irregardless of the consistency or the integrity of the work, is his right even though, "nothing consisting of a benefit to me, was ever done." He believes he should be paid, because he wants the money, for by no standard has he done the work or earned anything but contempt. DEVELOPMENT establishes Howell demands his right to pursue the money, howell created the problem, howell arrogantly asserts, "he holds superiority" in all ways to me, by attempting to make me "a villain", howell prepares to ridicule me by using the court to make me pay, howell deceives himself that he has in some way earned a payment because he provided a visual inspection, and x-rays which are of no value to me, as no other dentist will use them, making the true consequence of his swindle/ simply a robbery of my time and resources: NO actual work of benefit to me, exists. Bringing the charge his arrogance, his fears, his emotion, and his PRIDE have attacked him, & thereby he stands accused by me of being a danger to society, because pride and arrogance are the first exhibits of the inevitable result of insanity, as pride begins to fail (its all my fault/ when in fact, I have had nothing to do with this whole matter, but ask for exactly what any other member of this society would expect: that is NOT waiting 7 months for care regarding a broken tooth). In contrast to Howells' methods: I did make an appointment with howell, having called with the complaint of a broken tooth/ I MADE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR, that the purpose of the visit was this tooth. He knew this was my expectation. His staff assigned me an appointment in late December 2001, a much longer wait time than I expected, but as I have no regular dentist, I waited fully expecting repair would be on that day. I arrived, I waited, the staff took x-rays (which no other dentist will use). Howell came in examined the teeth visually, informed me of an additional 14 cavities by his count, and some alternate work. This is the extent of work actually done (10 minutes for a visual inspection). I inquired are you not going to repair anything (in a very calm and civil tongue)/ howell says no ( in a very clear and certain manner). I then ask for an estimate on the repairs and a bid: howell informed me of possible credit available and I indicated clearly I would pay in cash, in advance of each visit if he liked. He agrees to present a bid, and a week later a letter arrives indicating the work and the amount of the bid. A subsequent week later, I call and accept the bid, asking to set up appointments as soon as possible. His staff begins by assigning one appointment per each week for the next 11 weeks. At which time I request why/ they insist upon filling only one cavity per visit and as such I require a visit per cavity. I have been in many dentist offices and commonly know for certain 2 or 3 cavities per visit is the norm. I complain but the staff says NO. The last appointment assigned is 7/16/02 and that does not include any work beyond cavities. In summary, I called in late September 01, would not receive actual beneficial work until April 30/02 [until 7 months later], and would then be required to spend at least the next 11 weeks driving, waiting, & subjecting myself to a situation I would have expected at NO dentist office in this area. MY ANSWER IS NO! a 7 month wait to fix a broken tooth/ a demand to surrender my time to inexcusable whim/ an assertion of threat beyond the purpose of the letters I sent (clarifying howells involvement; was this his idea or an error from the staff). Howell SAYS NO, this is my way, he has taken full responsibility for his staff and feels I should not complain! The intent by his declaration is a swindle/ perpetuated by the enticement of a scheduled appointment, which became used for the robbery of this intended event. Howell tempted me to his office with the promise of work/ he knew the purpose of my visit and refused, he then refused an appropriate appointment for a return visit to have the work done in a reasonable time frame/ He deliberately influences my dental needs (why should I trust another) fully understanding the results of time/ he fundamentally abandons my needs as a patient/ howell replies to my first letter, HE did this on purpose, and he has a right to do so! He has no remorse. In return I clearly and deliberately explain that his actions against me were cogent to the needs of a courtroom and he should reconsider promptly or a trial would ensue, with the intent of establishing a reasonable judgment, that would address the needs of an individual in developing "media advertizing against his business". Howell replies "PAY THE BILL" he has assigned, accept the accusation of "criminal intent as he has portrayed me with " ( a SLANDER to my good name). Understanding a mention of my name now exists in the written consequences of a police document, and pay (informed by certified mail, and a call from the police) or he will seek collection, and court remedies.
My reply is entirely presented within the 2 formal letters sent to howell. In keeping with those promises, the assessment of penalties begins
THEY ARE: 1. The court is asked to establish the "ground rules" for advertizing against a business. The court is required to BE SPECIFIC IN CLEAR ENGLISH WITH NO ROOM FOR CONFUSION! Do understand the needs of the common citizen are being established here/ therefore an appeal shall exert the right of public inclusion. The court is asked to declare what it means to EARN THE MONEY, or accept my definition. If the court refuses/ then it is asked to explain article 3 section 2 of the constitution; "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity...." If you cannot explain, how can you judge? 2.The court is asked to create the boundary which gives an EQUAL STANDING to the citizen with the business/ that standing does not now exist, within the following description: for the business, legal representation is a business expense, not a deductible citizen expense. The average business allows the cost of lawsuits to be distributed over the work of many people/ the citizen has only themselves. The average business can afford greater legal expenditures than the citizen and thereby buys a greater legal defense or offense. The court is asked to stand up for the citizen and describe the foundations of citizen respect/ as it applies to the basis of the words "a person who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" DEMONSTRATE the constitutional compliance with "establish justice, and promote the general welfare". Explain the difference between "truth self-evident....and inalienable rights...and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men..."the declaration of independence. The court asserts minimal rules of procedure ARE in FACT GREATER Than constitutional right, constitutional law, or justice and fair play/ the court has taken from me thousands of dollars through tyranny/ I DO hold the legal cases in my past to prove this: want to see them? This courtroom assassination of justice merely "makes the citizen a prey", therefore better is expected from this judge.
3. As to the slander & defamation of character, the fundamental participation in a deteriorating dental outlook (I find the profession littered with no respect, and absolute greed) a fact which has kept me away from further dentists. The work of this lawsuit and its obvious appeal which is now required of me, simply because of howell. A price of $30,000.00 dollars is affixed. Let the jury decide/ be it known I really don't care.
4. As to the assertion developed according to business risk, as indicated and calibrated within the letters sent to establish by language and content a courtroom challenge would not be pleasant/ the fact that howell chooses to pursue "at full force" a billing he does not deserve, does indicate a pride and arrogance which commonly leads to an insanity on some level. The risk of court as explained, in relation to the possible reward/ does not make sense, therefore a warning is required of me: DO NOT let your mind betray you/ or you will be sorry. "is this not more than you expected, learn the lesson"! 5. In the matter of prejudice and discrimination, it would seem proper to me/ that howell be reprimanded by the court, to preform some type of community service, in the interest of the underprivileged. Perhaps he will learn something of respect or the attainment of knowledge which leads to respect.
HERE, begins the constitutional aspects of this case
The equal protection clause asserts that true justice be the aim of the court. Therefore the introduction of irrelevant rules or laws inferior to the constitution WOULD VIOLATE the cause of justice and WOULD create a "blasphemy" within the court. All who search for justice, SHALL call this into disrepute/ because bigotry by any method constitutes a tyranny. Justice IS THE JUDGE! Justice shall come to mean A RESPONSIBILITY on all parties, including the court/ NOT as judgment to be rendered, but as the truth, that society needs, assigned by critical & clear expectations. These expectations shall not favor any party. These expectations shall ascend from the evidence, into calculable actions, and these actions shall address & inform society with a clear & certain intent to AID & ABET the peace and security of an environment established by EQUALITY for society. Established by the lack of integrity "everywhere" in society, as characterized by howell's response. The question becomes one of social responsibility: "WHAT DOES EACH OF US OWE THE OTHER"?
The court WILL bear in mind, the application of constitutional intent, the purpose of constitutional law, and the application of justice ALL insist upon understanding/ therefore some leniency in the establishment of this case IS the courts responsibility to endure: otherwise you must justify by the law, the fundamental difference between the citizen which you are, and the superiority which you confess. Be aware an appeal will come, intending in every aspect to include the public by participation/ choose your words well.
The fundamental precept of Democracy, therefore the critical foundation supporting the American concept of society is found as RESPECT! Therefore justice explained according to constitutional documents establishes equality, confronts those who separate themselves as better than, and demands simply "we ARE in this together". Given this outline, as a constant & definitive authority, upon the discretions of any person including a judge or a dentist: the assertion by law is, that we shall respect each other/ as individuals, not businesses or titles! The constitutional documents ARE THE LAW, THEY ENFORCE THE LAW, & THEY LIMIT THE LAW, and no other version of law exists to overrule them. From the critical cry to arms, from the Declaration of Independence "....we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our sacred honor", defends the assertion [ we are in this together] WHO would be enticed to fight, "for your pride or money". From the critical promises of the Bill of Rights (the real one, not the excuse) a summation "That neither money, nor title, nor station, nor any other exercise of power can establish a cause for tyranny. Defends the assertion of a purpose clear and consistent with law and RESPECT For us all. From the constitution itself ".....provide for the common defense..."/ THEREFORE YOU THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURT, & THE OFFICIAL ARE ORDERED TO DO THE SAME! As applied to this case, the failure to preform in accordance with reasonable expectation, negates any other consideration of a monetary reward. The failure of the man, by the clearly passionate assertions of superiority, & the intent to command & control, rather than assess & understand & respect the realities involved, does establish a social need to be aware & informed. As such the critical resolution to advertize against; subjects the court to do its duty and protect all interests properly. The "better business bureau IS MUTE" prove they are not otherwise, to the common citizen/ in REAL AND RESOLUTE fact. The alternative is "simply let others suffer as well, & I will not"!
This has been an attack for property against me, which does open the door to establish "what we do owe each other". The critical justice explained as a relationship of "life to life" therefore examines 3 critical truths:
THEY ARE:
1. Your are FREE to be yourself (in so far as hurting no other life)/ you are NOT free to enslave by any means, such as inappropriate billing, ANY other life.
2. You ARE created EQUAL, therefore the same as ME! Fair play & justice demand clear & certain evidence to substantiate any claim. The lack of substantial value, creates a charge of collusion, either as deliberate fraud or a fraud conceived by an alliance between an individual or business in collusion with a billing that conforms to a threat, and a robbery. FAIR MEANS: critically the same, level of input (you must EARN the money) by methods which compensate the other by "an equal output"/ this is a life measurement not a monetary one. My time was lost (does it have no value), my visit was useless (am I considered as nothing to this man), the property of my vehicle was used in this farce of a dental appointment, and I was abused. (where is my compensation/ he demands his/ where is the work that benefitted me). A title is nothing, you must earn the money.
3 Justice is more than a word, it is a RIGHT. Therefore the relationship created as life to life, exists within the framework built upon BASIC TRUST! Trust assures each, that an understanding exists, NOT a simple expectation. Understanding declares a constant value, an honest evaluation, a certain honor, & a respectful opportunity to participate, in any disagreement as may arise, WITH HONORABLE INTENT. Based upon reasonable social law & common value. This has not proven true for howell, at this time, he asserts superiority/ because I entered his office and sat in his chair he demands compensation.
The constitution says: we owe
each other the blessings of liberty/ which means the responsibility to demand
justice here, is a duty. The bill of rights says; that inherent rights are the
basis and foundation of government/ therefore, "he must, as must all, EARN
THE MONEY. The declaration of
SUMMATION
The reality of common practice in dentistry as in medicine in general exists in the opposite of justice. Like howell the intent & purpose are clear & simple for very many, "give me the money". Therefore a lack of respect from every side, DOES produce the critical deterioration of society itself, from "Life to life/ to a reality of barriers, & attacks such as howell represents", it is society itself that suffers from letting this man swindle. Social greed merely mirrors the experience of loneliness, and demonstrates the frustrations of choosing between WANTS and the people who are chosen "To be spent", in the grasp of a belief, "that happiness can be bought". TRULY, happiness can only be shared! These expressions do seek to establish an understanding, as justice is built, and reality demonstrates the existence of purpose & intent. For clarity, to those who worship money, as you race from purchase to purchase, discarding everything, but the fantasies & the images of your own mind/ answer this question: do you truly desire life as nothing more than a number, surrounded by the numbers others place upon you/ or is LIFE more important that the measurements of your mind? And again: If you won/ own the world and everything in it, with NOT ONE LIFE, other than yours to "keep you company" Then would you be rich or poor? The common human experience is a reaction to someone else's greed, lust, or thirst for power/ if you are not happy, its because YOU are entangled in these things.
NOTIFICATION IS GIVEN
This is to be mailed to the various news agencies around the immediate area. NO interview will be given/ my face & my form are MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, and to use them without my express written permission IS THEFT! BEWARE! Use or do not use, but remember the story is about social justice, not personal aspects beyond my name or the descriptions given here. Howell precipitated this problem, howell designed the response, howell insisted upon a legal recourse, howell gets his wish. As for me, a simpler resolution, establishing guidelines is needed.
As indicated in my letter/ howell is to provide the name and address of the person and company who he says, provided him with legal support in this matter/ that they may be included in this trial. WHY Should they not support their position? The court is summoned to provide this support to me.
IN REVIEW: this legal filing establishes a testimony as would be consistent with a jury trial. it attempts to establish the fundamental evidence of the plaintiffs expert testimony, as it represents his life, and the actions of the defendant which interfered with that life. This filing also considers the corruption of the court (as an entity) and applies the need to instruct the legal system in the matters of justice, as the court has long ago discarded truth and reason/ for the singular purpose of power. In the design of power, only the money, the influence, and the control, matter/ the reality becomes and is in the common relationship of the court to the citizen: simply, HOW shall we devise a situation without compromise where the immunity we claim, cannot be contested? The answer is, "control the rules, control the language, teach the lawyer, justice is the tool of fools". By any measure, this is "the presence of the beast/ an illustration of very simple purposes, intent upon destruction by the shredding of every principle of fair play and honest truth." The court is then a game of predator and prey, and we the people are its prey.
ITEM #4
Response to: request for admissions of fact
Dated 6/27/02
Webber and Thies
Defendant J. Barry Howell dds
FROM the plaintiff- as per questions asked:
In clarification of the original complaint/ NO lawyer fees are currently requested/ NO actual monetary claims have occurred UNLESS the court refuses to do its job, & outline the distinct questions, applied to the court, IN REAL WORLD TERMS! Useful advertisements describing the actual facts of the case, will then occur.
The money listed, is ONLY described in association with appeals and as such is self-defeating . I WANT the courts instruction & the fundamental RIGHT to use this information, IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST/ I believe it is a duty.
IF this is NOT acceptable to the defendant, let him speak NOW/ because if the defendant wants this case to turn to money, THEN IT WILL.
THIS IS YOUR TEST: if your conduct was professional & ethical, then this lawsuit shall only provide A FREE and FAIR advertising for you@/ if your conduct is to be hidden/ THEN we will be talking MONEY!
I recommend to you; to ensure the judge does not dismiss.
In the matter of fair play: the court and the defendant is provided advance warning: a VERY LARGE LAWSUIT, of public interest, is prepared and waiting for the proper time to be filed. This case SHALL find itself reviewed; either for Agood and proper and reasonable OR for bad behaviors without cause@/ therefore I do suggest you be WISE.
IN
REVIEW; this request for an additional statement is engineered by the lawyer,
in the common attempt to secure more words; thereby expecting to generate a
cause upon which to attack. This is common procedure, and the reason most
people are unwilling and unable to provide a defense for themselves within the
court system. Few are trained, to consider each and every word, as either a
trap or a defense. The consequence of fundamental public justice, is the plain
and simple reality of a written statement/ WHICH MUST CONTAIN/ all available
information and reasoning. That statement is then to be considered as the format
for interpretation, rather than the decreed statement of absolute truth. Format
means, we have the basic reference in place to establish the direction and the
journey and the reason. These consider the destiny of any action, rather than
the reaction of any action/ and as a consequence are used to define truth.
Within
the format of this writing the direction to be considered is Adamage to the community@:
I have charged the defendant with contributing to the devaluation of community
life to the degree, that the greed allowed, has made the obligation of no
teeth, a better alternative than dealing with or supporting the reality of Athe desecration of life, into the values associated with
numbers/ rather than lives@. Greed is the value placed upon things/
therefore greed establishes the slavery used to confiscate the sanctity of
life, and produce an expectation based upon pride.
Within
the format of this writing, the journey explains; that respect is necessary to
life/ that we are all entitled to that respect (even if its akin to a Avenomous snake@) and therefore the issuance of respect,
the defense of respect, and the duty of respect is the purpose of the court,
and the reason it exists. Respect explains: the only distinct difference
between you and anyone, is your own individuality/ as humanity we are equals!
TRUE RESPECT; explains, that the work and efforts each of us produces in
relation to survival is essentially the same/ therefore with the elimination of
greed, we would all receive similar compensations, dependent upon the risks
involved. Respect understands, that inherent rights exist because this Amiracle of our lives@, cannot be challenged by anything
people do/ the truth of our lives is truly so far beyond anything we as a
society or as ourselves can do, that no defense exists, to establish or explain
a benefit that anyone deserves over another. Respect adheres to the simple
explanation: We were born with our inherent abilities/ therefore what claim
exists to support pride, as the basis of any action or any claim. WE ARE EQUAL!
And it is the courts job, to insure this truth explains our basic interactions
with each other. The challenge is not to control/ the honor is to discipline,
in such a way, that reality allows truth to control the fundamental expressions
of life, in the experience of simple hopes, and honest expectations of justice,
the integrity of fair play, and the fundamental assistance of dignity as it
supports and defends the respect we all require. The lack of respect, DOES
CAUSE, the lack of order in a life/ therefore the lack of respect is directly
responsible for many of the problems of humanity. Greed is explained within the
reality of resource depletion, as the consequence of Atoo many people, for the resources at hand/ therefore an
intense search and effort occurs to control the remaining resources. When the
reality is not of survival, greed still surfaces in those who demand AI want, yours too@. Therefore the respect required to
sustain equality is tied directly to: the fundamental truth, that we all have
needs/ and we MUST RESPECT the environment in which we live/ or we will fight
and die.
ITEM #5
Sixth judicial circuit champaign
JOHN R. DELAMAR
Circuit judge
dated July 15, 2002
Mr. James F. Osterbur Mr. Carl M. Webber
RE: Osterbur v. J. Barry Howell D.D. S
#02-L-126
Dear counsel:
Please be advised that I have entered the following order in the captioned case:
The motion of the defendant to dismiss the complaint and for sanctions is set to be heard September 3, 2002 at 11: 30 a.m. in Courtroom K. The defendant is to file a memorandum of law in support of the motion and deliver a copy to the court at its chambers no later than August 12, 2002. The plaintiff is to file a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion and deliver a copy to the court at its chambers no later than August 26, 2002. The defendant is to file any reply no later than September 2, 2002.
A failure to comply with the foregoing order by the movant will result in the court's treating the motion as withdrawn. A failure to comply with the foregoing order by the party against whom the motion is directed will result in the court's granting the motion as confessed.
Thank you
John R. DeLaMar Circuit judge
ITEM #6
TO THE COURT
Re: motion to dismiss
02-L-126
Osterbur v. J. Barry Howell
REBUTTAL
JULY 16/02
The defendant claims
1. that $30,000 dollars was requested/ the defendant and his attorney KNOW this is untrue, as the amount was plainly explained to them in the previous reply letter. Plainly & deliberately it was NOT! On the contrary JUSTICE Is being sought, and opportunity to legally warn the public is expected. The $30,000 merely selects the courtroom wherein the lawsuit is filed.
2. Justice does not need a caption/ it NEEDS an honest & true hearing.
3. failure to sign was an oversight, easily corrected/ request & I will come to the court and fix that.
4. The cause is simple & plain: this dentist deliberately enticed me to do business with him/ I expected treatment for a broken tooth would have been completed LONG before 7 months went by. The defendant NOW takes me to collection, threatens financial repercussions, and fails the very simple cause of action: YOU MUST EARN THE MONEY!
This is an understandable cause of action in ANY contractual matter/ and this is a contractual matter. I agreed to let the defendant do work for me. He refused to do the work within common & ordinary guidelines, as would be expected throughout the community & nation. I refused to pay for negligible & insolent treatment, and as a consequence of his absolute disregard for HONESTY & FAIR PLAY, did commence this trial.
His actions establish a pattern of betrayal, charging & charges for work which is either insignificant to me or his actions establish an intent to "subject me to his will" so to speak. This is elemental swindling. HE did NOT desire to do the work/ therefore HE concocted a sufficient delay to drive me away, & now he cries, "pay me". The question remains, FOR WHAT?
5. There is NO multiple counts except for the reality of "I AM tired of the greedy & arrogant". I expect better and, I am, seeking the help of the court to establish justice and peace in society. This is the constitutional mandated responsibility of the court, and to deny it is akin to perjury, and contempt.
6. no one cares.
7. Understanding establishes cause: I could have said, "the defendant attempts to steal from me/ by using his status and claiming class superiority." MY WAY is better!
8. I give you NO PRAYERS/ I ask for & expect JUSTICE & that is superior to ANY RULE of the court, & the court knows it.
9. Society NEEDS RESPECT/ when justice & respect are denied/ it is society that suffers! The purpose of the court, IS RESPECT How else, can it be said "Justice has been done"!
10. The defendant WAS NOT charged for lawyer fees! HE instigated this lawsuit throughout/ first he attempts to swindle me/ then a collection process to which he is NOT entitled/ and now through a fear of what advertizing could do to his business! PLAINLY HE FAILS the test, set before him in the reply letter, and is afraid of the consequences.
I WILL OFFER THE DEFENDANT ONE DEAL, ONE TIME, NO NEGOTIATION, ONLY! I did not come to make you fear/ I DO intend to establish learning, period. Because of your fear, I will allow you to pay me $5000, and then silence the lawsuit by whatever legal method you desire! YOU HAVE ONE WEEK TO DECIDE, IF BY JULY 18.02 THE MONEY is not in my hand (allowance for the mail). The offer ends permanently.
If you do not settle/ then know for sure, that my expectation is, " the advertizing you are going to get, IS beyond you wildest expectation." SUIT YOURSELF!
IN REVIEW the the plaintiff states, in #1 that there is no forum for simple justice in the American court/ all issues are subject to money. #2 the lawyer decides to proceed in the common method, "trap him in frivolous details". #3 the question exists can such an obvious oversight really get you thrown out of court/ yes it can. #4 establishes the need for a courtroom, and the fundamental disciplines of a fair hearing, because people are not honorable, when money means more than honor. #5 when the court fails, society also begins to fail/ therefore fundamental justice, is the "glue, which holds society together". Therefore when it is your turn to fight for justice, it is a duty, not simply a need or a right. #6 more frivolous shit. #7 This is an establishment of how much the court has stolen from the process of public participation/ and provided to the lawyer, as a method of public control, for the purpose of money & greed. #8 The judicial branch expects absolute control. #9 The courtroom has become a den of thieves, not because all legal personnel is corrupt/ instead the "various supreme courts/ particularly the us supreme court" HAS chosen to destroy public participation and reform the judicial process to "the college graduate/ we aren't smart enough"! The result of this tyranny is the courtroom, and in particular the judges of the supreme court are the MOST DISCRIMINATORY PLACES AND PEOPLE, IN ALL OF AMERICA. #10 IT IS better to settle out of court, if you can/ in nearly every instance. The problem with this day is, the lawyer can and does take an inherent right, a justice, & a duty and with the help of the judge, extort the process, and blackmail the litigant by intervening in a process where only the litigants belong. The proper method of procedure relies upon a firm understanding of the facts (such as I provided), and a clear set of simple facts (such as I provided), and a court which hears honesty rather than precedent. Justice is not a history of declarations/ justice is a reality of purpose, applied to the reason which honor declares is true.
state of
PROOF
OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, James F. Osterbur,
hereby declare and certified that on the day of July 16, or 17, I have caused
to be mailed by depositing in the us post office at royal Il, with proper
postage prepaid the enclosed materials. To
the addresses of Webber & Thies, PC
202
champaign county courthouse
101
E. main
dated July 16/02
ITEM #7IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR/ plaintiff
V. J. BARRY HOWELL DDS/ defendant dated aug 13,2002 REPLY TO MEMORANDUM
It is a sad commentary on the judicial system when the defense (attorney) must express himself through FRAUD/ he asserts: "dismiss, because any attempt to answer is futile"/ in other words the documents presented are too vague to be understood. He asserts: "no organization/ no allegations/ making it impossible to ascertain the issues and facts". He states in effect: "The language common to ANY jury trial, the information provided as would be appropriate and common to ANY jury trial, and the fundamental ascertain of a contractual obligation are Too complicated For him to understand".
As declared by the defense, the defendant DOES HAVE the burden of answering specific allegations. 1. Does he NOT also have the duty to complete HIS contractual obligations? I arrived with the VERY SPECIFIC purpose of having a broken tooth repaired/ it did NOT need to be x-rayed, as it was plainly visible/ NOTHING was done!
2. Produce your witnesses to bolster your claim that 7 months for a broken tooth or 10 months for a few common filings, Is A professional description of competent, business-like, routine (for this area) patient treatment. SHOW ME, WITH WITNESSES!
3. Produce your witnesses to bolster the claim that I should receive only one filing per weekly visit, if I had accepted/ making the 10 months and more from the date of request for dental services, the area norm, for the suggested 14 cavities. SHOW ME, with area dentists who are willing to say this is the norm for their practice and their patients. 4. The defendant claims a right to bill me, for subjecting me to the discriminations listed above/ without doing ANYTHING of substantial value in return. The defendant DID NOT EARN ANY compensation for his apathy & abuse of me, & I come to court saying: "I need the RIGHT of due process to establish an honorable conclusion here. A RIGHT GUARANTEED by the 14th amendment of the constitution, as well as others. 5. The court recognizes ONLY money/ therefore the number associated with this case of $30,000 in case of an appeal; is neither inappropriate or wrong. I INTEND to legally advertize for the defendant, with the courts clear & certain intervention; to remove any doubt or cause of libelous or slander or any other. This is HIS business, This is a public RIGHT to know/ therefore it does NOT belong in small claims, a greater value exists. 6. The defense answers all 10 counts of the rebuttal in the common conspiracy of the court, to control the cause of justice, rather than embrace it: By REMOVING justice and making it a "game of children, ranting & raving and crying, You can't play with my toys"! The constitution is about men & women and justice, and it is NOT any child's playground/ GROW UP! When you have NO case// then plead NO case & fight for justice in the judgment. The blatant disregard for justice or integrity or dignity in demanding "trivial pursuits" such as rules without justice/ conceives of "a snake in the grass, striking out, at the unaware & defenseless, to damage and abuse". 7.The defense contends that rules of the court are superior to justice and to law/ the issue is plain/ ANY JURY in this land would understand. The defendant understands perfectly, these were his decisions. It is unnecessary to treat him or his attorney as if he were a baby & had to be bottle fed. There is NO LACK of "meaningful counts or paragraphs" THAT IS the purpose of a lengthy discussion as provided. IF there were ANYTHING of substance for the defense to use, they would do so! INSTEAD, they are forced to again play the child "crying wolf" just to get attention. YOU are reminded that justice is the duty of the court, and ANY LAW or rule that does not establish, sustain, & protect that justice is IN FACT, a tyranny, merely disguised.
8.The cause of action: I have a RIGHT to the services I contracted for (a broken tooth fixed). The contract was never executed, because the work was never done.
9. The cause of action is: I have a RIGHT to the SAME expectations of service & competency as ANY other might. The times assigned by the dentist, and the demands for my time from the dentist were INEXCUSABLE, & DISCRIMINATORY, and without merit. WHO would accept them you? I doubt it VERY MUCH! 10. If the jury understands/ NEITHER the court, the litigants, nor the law as written can be interpreted as superior: they the jury of my peers, are the judge/ through the constitutional descriptions of their authority. 11.The elements & essentials are clear: the defendant charges me for NOTHING/ then shoves me out the door, and demands payment for NOTHING/ THEN charges a collection agency to force me to pay for NOTHING; and I REFUSE!!!!!! 12.Justice, the critical purpose of ANY legal action means: an honorable intervention between opposing sides for the purpose of a FAIR & HONEST determination of the facts (presented by another), the evidence (presented by the litigants) & the reason (presented without cause for prejudice by both sides)/ [the defense pretends law and proposes prejudice through rules]. The honor attached to FAIR PLAY, is thereby displayed by a level and safe and open environment wherein the truth decides. I have stated my case, delicately danced around the manure constantly thrown by lawyers and judges/ and DO state the constitutional obligations of this state and federal constitutions ARE YOUR JUDGE. You must accept their direction or commit what can only be described as "a treasonable conduct". Justice is NOT an option it is a demand! The constitutions ARE the foundations of EVERYTHING you do as officials of the court/ the oath required states clearly that you do know your duty/ If you do not know it, or if you will not obey it/ then you are "rebels fighting against this nation", and have no honor at all. The signature of the defense & your testimony to date IS literally "vexatious, harassing, and abusive". What jury would judge you otherwise? Since the defense insists; for money, & discards honor and justice and respect as mere legal formalities/ then the SAME penalty is added by me for lawyer fees (whatever he intends to charge me) plus costs of the court, to the defendant. The reality is we stand in the same trial/ therefore we are equals. The penalty added is described in memorandum and charged per hour, at the rate charged by dentists, for assessed value.
13.The issuance of a collection agency IS harassment, where no contractual obligation exists.
14. Justice is NOT about rules/ JUSTICE is about inherent rights, and critical truths, that people did and do die for! I am a citizen, claiming these inherent rights as provided by these people, these deaths, & these sufferings! If a rule is not substantially used for the integrity of justice and its findings/ then I am NOT interested in some bastard rule of the court. [the issuance of ANY rule under the disguise of law/ to strip from me my constitution rights is a bastard rule/ and a demonstration of corruption in the court] 15. I am offering to provide advertizement for free to the defendant UNDER court supervision/ by what legal cause of action, does he claim this is a reason to incur defense costs? HE HAS NONE! Instead the defense fights to hide the truth from the public. We will see if the judge finds public need to be greater than "the closed society of lawyers & judges"/ from which justice & right are demonstrated to be a game of words for the sake of money. The lawyer claims a right for words without substance/ produces innuendo without a factual cause & and the defects of his defense without legal standing. The lawyer fails, because he too doesn't care about justice or inherent right, and interprets my statement "I don't care about the money/ I care about the dignity, the right of fair and appropriate treatment, & the public's need to know". This lawyer states, "this is a defect", and I charge him to explain in detail, WHY?
16. The judge is instructed to be clear & certain in his findings. The appeal to follow is CERTAIN, to be very specific, & very critical as to the intent of justice & the purpose of law.
17. Here then, begins the cause of an award made necessary, "because the defense clearly states: they want only to win, and justice doesn't matter". IN REBUTTAL to the defense 1. The plaintiff NOW seeks an award of $30,000 as a fair settlement to the costs of advertizing, & damage done: DECAYING TEETH COST MONEY!
2.The lawyer is hereby required to establish the justifiable need for a caption as it becomes NECESSARY to render justice (does a jury need this caption)! PROVE dismissal should be based upon anything so trivial!
INSTEAD I will instruct you, that a courtroom belongs to the people, NOT any judge, not any attorney, not any litigants: BUT to the people who died for it, those who suffered great distress for it, and those who cried BEYOND the value of these things and paid more than anyone had a right to ask. This courtroom is OURS, AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE/ IT IS NOT YOURS as judge, attorney, or litigant. YOU should be ashamed, that I find it NECESSARY to remind you of these things!
3. By what method or meaning do you suggest that I am not responsible for these words/ YOU are charging me because of them. This is an ASININE attack without merit.
4. a) Earning the money is the basis of any legal contract/ anything else is merely blackmail. B) I engaged in a contractual obligation for the specific purpose of a broken tooth repair/ the defendant failed to adhere to his contractual duty/ therefore he is owed NOTHING. C) I engaged in a business arrangement wherein I expected to be treated as any other might be/ I WAS NOT, but instead given an option NO other patient in this area would have accepted: The jury decides! D) I fully deny ANY inclusion of improper or irrelevant material/ but demand the full latitude of an appeals process in my best interest. E) The matter of law IS NOT a personal discussion, as it pertains to public matters. This matter contains & represents significant public consequences and as such, "attention to public details", is important.
5. An understanding of the 2 counts interspersed throughout every document written, need NOT be spoon-fed to the attorney or the court (this is how the jury gets it/ BE CONTENT). The complaint establishing the necessary cause of why advertising should be undertaken relies upon significant public DUTY/ the greedy & arrogant HAVE disturbed the peace and tranquillity of myself, this place, this nation, & this world. It is past time to demand justice!
6. Neither the court NOR the defense attorney are provided pacifiers, for the simple tears "I can't understand/ what any jury could understand"! JUSTICE IS NOT A GAME, whimpering is not a right./ the fact that a contractual obligation demands an earned right, is also NOT a joke/ it is a duty of the court to enforce. It is clear the defense expects "conspiratory actions from the court, in their disregard for justice". Only time will tell, whether the public & personal justice necessary to sustain this nation, does in fact exist in this courtroom and this judge.
7. My burden is to present the evidence as I see fit. In a manner that is true & appropriate with the cause of justice/ to do so I must witness to what I saw, I must give testimony in my own words, as to the evidence I present, and I must acknowledge the court not as my superior/ but as societies answer, and fight for justice accordingly. The assumption that I should let the defense or the court put "words in my hand or in my mouth/ REEKS of an abortion, of the cause of justice", and is contempt for the process.
8. PRAYER (as defined by the dictionary) one who acts or practices praying to god/ a religious service/ an address (as a petition) to god. ARE YOU GOD? Instead the constitution forbids religious doctrine/ by critical observation the court declares itself a religious icon, and thereby defecates upon the people and the constitution. REMOVE IT.
9. The demonstration of fundamental justice in a public forum, as it pursues the inherent rights of every citizen is a matter of respect, for us all.
10. The lawsuit was instigated by the collection agency letter, AND THAT WAS, at the defendants own discretion & decision/ he was clearly warned/ therefore his own actions brought him to court, not mine.
YOU CAN READ/ therefore understand this: contrary to the cartoon quips of the power insane, there are no winners or losers in life! Reality pushes, & discipline decides/ only HONOR, INTEGRITY, & DUTY assigned by sharing & caring about the order of life, constitutes dignity and respect, whether the world agrees or not.
The alternative is DISHONOR & SHAME as selfishness, greed, & lust produce arrogance, violence, and the intent to control/ LIFE IS NOT A GAME! Therefore the consequences of your choices, does determine eternity/ think rather than react, and decide your fate.
IN REVIEW; this writing establishes the clear & certain destruction of the process of justice, as stated in the very first paragraph/ "The lawyer cannot understand"! It is obvious, the lawyer does understand, however he has no case at all/ therefore he stands on the common legal recourse among judges & lawyers: "just call him stupid, and dismiss him". This is repeated over & over, throughout the court cases presented, all of them! And as is true of them all, the court and the lawyers involved know exactly what they are being told: they just don't like it! There response "is the closed society version of the secret handshake"; claim a slight error in giving the handshake, therefore don't let him in. As is seen in this most clear example/ the lack of legal substance is irrelevant! The collusion is demanded, the protection is sustained, and the court is in disgrace. I will NOT accept, a disintegration of respect for this particular judge/ although he failed to protect the public aspects of this case, he did protect from the lawyer assessed expectations of a billing he intended to pad, by bringing an assistant. The judge merely protects himself/ as does society: the purpose of the presentation is then as it benefits society/ NOT as it benefits or plagues those involved/ choose respect.
Therefore
we begin again, in the needs of the American court system, as it applies to the
welfare of society itself. I did not receive any evidence from the defendant in
support of his claims/ this is a failure of the court; he must support his
position. I did not receive a trial of due process, as provided by the 14th
amendment/ I received a hearing before the judge, and he made the decision.
This is not a constitutional right/ this is an obstruction of the law. By the
authority of evidence, by the reason of law, as provided by me, by the
certainty of contractual obligations, I the plaintiff deserved to proceed into
court. [for clarity, the matter is over/ unless the defense chooses to
reinstate]. The reality of pitiful support for the public is in evidence/
justice is not an issue for the court to decide; it can deal only with money,
or crime. This type of case does not belong in court/ instead it does belong in
an appropriate type of "better business bureau" wherein the public is
honorable entitled to know who does what to whom. Therein is a measure of
safety for the public (an advertizing if you will, to ensure comprehension of
"we will tell on you/ then let the public decide". The rules of this
engagement are: facts stated, names declared, proof established, all parties
informed, and room to declare a short personal defense for each side, that
shall not be used for court purposes. [that said, the issuance of direct lies/
does constitute a legal forum to be pursued]. The allegations of #6 speak to the intent of life, and the causes for
which people die: do we die, for nothing but a game! OR do we die, as a people,
required to defend the necessary cause for liberty and freedom, which is
equality and respect and JUSTICE. The court has long disregarded the sacrifice
of lives/ sitting behind closed doors, listening to children squirm, and people
outright lie/ pandering to the illicit demands of "power to the lawyer,
NOT power to the people"/ has devalued the court system in america, to the
miserable excuses of "a group of people who claim separate & exclusive
emoluments or privileges [check the bill of rights] even to the point of
demanding: PRAYERS"! The experience
of #7 is in direct controversy to the reality of amendment 7 of the
constitution; "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact
tried by jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court.." The legal
consequence of a failure to respect the judicial authority of common practice
and common language, demonstrates a judiciary "out of control/ a tyranny
of mock trials and formidable invasions of our inherent rights." This is
corruption, as it is certain, this behavior divides the nation, by creating
classes & separations/ this behavior discards justice for power &
control/ this behavior strips freedom from the population and demands
subservience/ this behavior compromises the basic securities of an honorable
state no more/ this behavior allows the tyranny of money to destroy the
equality of rights/ this behavior produces the existence of slavery by
supporting greed and all matter of basic thefts against the freedoms accepted
by society, by creating a "black market of those of are sold into
financial chaos." The fundamental
insistence of "my day in court" as applied to the rest of the
document, establishes the critical depravation of a system so corrupt
"throughout the nation", that I must challenge the court to do its
job! This is not, "a frustration" lending itself to an oration of
disdain/ this is a reality requiring the fundamental descriptions necessary to
the establishment of justice: they should be writing these things to me/ not
producing the situations necessary to require me, to write these things to
them! Justice is a JOKE in
ITEM #8
MEMORANDUM OF REALITY
IN ITS SUPPORT OF TRUTH AND FAIR PLAY
Osterbur v. J. Barry Howell
dated AUG 13,02
RE: O2 L 126
Champaign county court
The critical question: what DOES it mean "to earn the money?"
Within th context of this lawsuit the defendant swears, he has earned the money, because a SMALL amount of preliminary efforts were made, in preparation for an estimate. This so-called work, was a visual inspection of teeth (a 30 sec job), a chart indicating the various locations of old fillings, and an x-ray film. The demand is therefore attributed to an education, rather than an entitlement. A dental degree is then the focus of primary expectations. While the plaintiff asserts, a "so-called work", without VALUE to the recipient is NOT an entitlement, nor is it an educational right, it is a theft!
Therefore the focus of contention, establishes a fundamental distinction between an education, & an actual work, wherein the outcome MUST always benefit the recipient or society, OR there can be NO demand for compensation.
The investigation of critical value, assigns the following descriptions to each respective side: an education consists of 2-4 years or sometimes more, of studies in an environment of relative ease (or you flunk out). This is enjoyed by the majority and occurs among your peers, creating a social environment of limited responsibility and for most maximum opportunity/ and is supported either by parents or government in part, or as a whole/ while the rest of society supports the larger burden, of keeping these alive. In this environment of peers, exists the freedom to explore, experience, demonstrate a talent of your own choosing, and be among male & female counterparts whereby conversation need never be lacking, & opportunities exceed that of ANY other common situation in the nation. "Having personally interviewed many college graduates over the years/ the answer given to, was "college worth it"? HAS always been, "they were the best years of my life"/ very few deviate! Therefore the assertion of an obligation to pay, simply due to a college education (the probable best years of his life), MUST be assigned to the money that was spent/ loans taken and so on.
Let us review the alternative: the assertion of value by the plaintiff, is examined by the reality of "common labor". Common labor MEANS; the fundamental demand of NO WORK means; NO EAT, NO SLEEP, & NO participation within society. This reality in and of itself confronts & compromises the BASIC need to work, as IT MUST BE DONE/ therefore NO exception exists to the work apart from go elsewhere, if you can. Competition demands acceptance of ALL aspects of the job, like it or not, dangerous or not, necessary or not, because unlike the college degree where the government & university DO CONTROL certain aspects of the competition entering the workplace/ the real workplace demands it does not give. Therefore as is common to the majority; the reality conceived as HONEST & HONORABLE EXPECTATIONS when "I" must pay/ are applied to the people who "work for me", under the terms of FAIR & JUSTIFIABLE; these questions are applied to the defendant:
1. Did you do the work? Within the terms of equity, NO you did no work.
2. Did you respect the person who provided you with an opportunity to do the work? The answer applies a 7 month wait, and then another 3 months more from the time of the call, and says NO respect was given.
3. Did you at ANY time express remorse for the failure to do your assigned work {I did not assign a visual inspection or chart of old fillings, which has NO use, even for the dentist}? The answer is NO, instead the demand comes to pay or suffer.
4. Did you complete ANY professional work of ANY consequence to me, during this visit? The answer is NO, the x-rays were used to create an estimate of the job, as an entirety & cannot be used outside this office/ no dentist will accept them. I did not initiate the estimate/ I came for a broken tooth. Therefore NO professional work, created by the intent of the visit, nor the time used by the dentist, from my life/ was commenced or completed which could benefit me.
5. Did you, understand the consequence of extending the waiting period to seven full months from the initiating call, Did you understand the implication of adding another 3 months of constant return trips to the "wait for professional services"/ as it confirms the necessity of a broken tooth? To this honesty is added: of course he did/ therefore the assertion of swindle does indeed stand, as the basis of the decision "to force me away".
6. Did you understand, at the juncture of the letters to you, prepared & sent to this dentist, that ALL that was necessary WAS, abandon the charge for financial gain/ and we would be through with this? The letters ARE CLEAR, and their purpose is obvious, the dentist chooses "to force me to pay"/ even though he knows he has done NOTHING of substance, to earn the money. Instead the dentist chooses to "teach me a lesson"/ by turning my name to collection/ with every intent to DEMAND "the very last penny and more". Is this a repentance from his swindle: NO it is NOT!
7. I offer the dentist FREE ADVERTIZING depicting this situation in exact terms, as outlined by the court/ he says NO! I offer then to the dentist, "if you cannot face the public, if you fear they will reject you[ WHY else reject FREE advertizing, approved by the court], THEN pay me $5000.00 because as you intended to teach me a lesson/ I now intend to teach you a lesson/ it is FAIR!
The question of price assigns the value of dental work to the $1000.00 quoted to me at various times for a tooth crown (it varies, this is a higher end quote). I charge $20 dollars an hour/ therefore a crown representing $1000, plus roughly 50% more for taxes which must be earned and paid (add $500), plus the cost of trip and time spent from work at the dentist office 3 hours (add $60) plus pain & suffering dependent upon the abilities of the dentist/ "I get NO guarantees". Brings the total to $1560 dollars for a crown to me. $87 dollars the disputed amount, represents 4 and a half hours work plus taxes earned add 2 more hours/ or a total of 6 and a half hours of labor. The dentist can, & many do make $5460 minus $460 dollars office and material expense in this same 6 and one half hours doing crowns. Therefore explain to me Hour to hour, why this is not fair? I will explain to you/ the price of a college education (for the best years of your life)/ DOES NOT constitute a reason why you should be paid or receive a greater reward for your labor, than for mine. JUSTICE applies the term EQUAL to all parties.
Let the door open WIDE, by making the education free, from money/ an exchange for work/ for all competition as it is in the real world, and then an assignment of real value can be made. And NOW, rejecting my offer for simple (you do yours, and I will do mine, for justice sake), this person wishes to assign to me payment for his lawyer/ at a cost of $200 dollars an hour or so/ I can only guess 30 hours or so/ which means to me the price of injustice would be roughly $6000.00 IS THIS JUSTICE/ the fact that such a threat exists at all, explains extortion in a whole new light.
The question added to this lawsuit NOW BECOMES: does the expectation to ADD thousands of dollars in expense to me, constitute a true criminal action?
While the first $87 dollars was for "petty theft"/ the alteration by consequence to thousands of dollars DOES consent to a true intent for, a taking by the defendant, and in this light/ the result of GRAND THEFT, & purposeful damages DOES describe the merits of a felony. It IS the court which intervenes [ if it is has a "whim to"]/ BUT if the court refuses, then FELONY WILL be attached to the appeal. I come to the court to resolve a simple dispute with an arrogant and greedy man, without honor. The explanation of the $30,000 is sufficient and was clear from the beginning. The opportunity of the $5,000/ is an hour for hour charge and as such represents an equal standing irregardless of money; time is the human resource of value/ and my life is of equal value to his.
The fundamental discipline employed is: the RESULT is the same, as if this man hired an extortionist, to hold me for ransom/ IT IS THEFT, either way.
By the definition of simple truth, EARNED then come to mean: an entitlement due to the consequences of the actions taken, a fundamental truth of honest value, and dignified responses. The dentist did NO work of benefit/ therefore the contract for services was NEVER entered into/ therefore NO debt is due. PERIOD! NOW, however the dentist threatens with thousands of dollars, and may get it/ because the courtroom is corrupt, how else should such trivia as these claims deserve mention or constitute an action of substance. The court therein breaches its duty to the public/ and serves in a role of subservience to the sinister demands of blackmail.
In review: this writing depicts the social cause of justice is greater than this case/ the purpose is then to advise and establish a clear and definable action, usable by the public in its explanations to the government and to the court for support of equality among the people. The consequence applied to the court as corruption, is in relation to: the very critical piracy of justice, by the legal profession, of the system of public participation (jury) and fundamentally changing that system to a reality of illegitimate concerns and the illegal use of language to barricade and imprison the search for justice, behind the doors of an education, which then controls not only the money, but the very fabric which holds the nation together: the constitution and its declaration of independence and its bill of rights! These are hostages of a court system without respect for the people: This is a truth, defended by the simple words "He who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client". The difference between a lawyer and me, for instance/ is I have "first-hand knowledge". The reality presented herein is not about me/ but insists upon the certainty in the court cases reviewed: I have never lost by law/ I have only been dismissed by insignificant rules and innuendo, the court has played child, and I have been the "toy". This needs to change!!!!!!!
ITEM #9
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
2
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY,
3
_________________________________________________________
JAMES
F. OSTERBUR, )
4
)
Plaintiff,
)
5
)
v.
) No. 02-L-126
6
)
J.
BARRY HOWELL, D.D.S., )
7
)
Defendant.
)
8
__________________________________________________________
9
10
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had in the above-entitled
11
cause on September 3, 2002, before the HONORABLE JOHN R.
12
DELAMAR, Judge Presiding.
13
14
APPEARANCES:
15
Mr. James F. Osterbur
Plaintiff
16
Mr.
Carl Webber
17
Attorney at Law
for
the Defendant
18
19
20
21
__________________________________________________________
22
Melissa Clagg, RDR
License
No. 84-2876
Champaign
24
1
1
SEPTEMBER 3, 2002
2
(The following proceedings were transcribed from a
3
tape recording.)
4
THE COURT: 2002-L-126, James Osterbur v. J. Barry
5
Howell. Plaintiff appears personally. Mr. Webber appears
6
on behalf of the Defendant.
7
Cause called for hearing on Defendant's motion to
8
dismiss.
9
Mr. Webber?
10
MR. WEBBER: Your Honor, I wonder if I would have
11
permission to ask Doug Pyle to sit with me, one of our law
12
clerks, who's worked on this.
13
THE COURT: That's fine. Would you --
14
MR. WEBBER: Thank you.
15
THE COURT: -- please spell his last name for the
16
record.
17
MR. WEBBER: P-y-l-e.
18
THE COURT: Okay.
19
MR. WEBBER: Thank you.
20
THE COURT: Certainly.
21
MR. WEBBER: Our materials in response have been,
22
I think, sufficient to spell out the concerns we have. I
23
don't want to recite the issues there, because I know from
24
your history, you've read them.
2
1
We've been placed in the position of having to
2
carefully respond to materials or risk proceeding to trial
3
on this complaint. We have not been able to tell exactly
4
what it is. If it's a contract action, then it should
5
certainly just be pled as a contract and plead to breach.
6
We would suggest that the harassment should be
7
deleted and the extended assays should be deleted and just
8
have a complaint that indicates what the complaint is
9
about.
10
As the Court might consider, it's so improperly
11
done that it's to a very great degree more difficult to
12
respond to this kind of a complaint than one that would be
13
well drafted.
14
We would appreciate the Court's consideration of
15
the defense position that the motion to dismiss be granted
16
based upon the fact that the complaint is insufficient in
17
law and in fact, for that matter, and that as indicated
18
and shown in the response which was provided on Friday and
19
which Mr. Osterbur said that he got on Saturday, it shows
20
that this has been done before. He's been suggested by
21
the Appellate Court that this is not the appropriate way
22
to do it; wasn't even allowed to be appealed. And we
23
believe that he's under very substantial notice that this
24
kind of an action is not proper and, therefore, request
3
1
attorney's fees.
2
We would believe that it's appropriate and request
3
that a separate hearing be set for those amounts.
4
Thank you.
5
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Osterbur?
6
MR. OSTERBUR: I said enough, sir.
7
THE COURT: This 92-S-1561, I take it this arose
8
out of something other than the matter that's currently
9
before me?
10
MR. WEBBER: Yes, sir.
11
THE COURT: Okay. Well, the motion to dismiss is
12
well-taken. Most certainly, I understand and at times
13
share frustration with some of the procedural requirements
14
that seem to handcuff us on occasion in civil proceedings.
15
Those that upon which the Defendant relies in this motion
16
to dismiss are well-taken. They've got a basis and
17
practical necessity. And I don't believe a defendant can
18
fairly be called upon to respond to this complaint and
19
that it is not a plain and concise statement of a cause of
20
action, at least as the common law or statute recognizes
21
in
22
I think the complaint is very defective.
23
The motion to dismiss is allowed.
24
However, the request for sanctions at this time is
4
1
denied, given the fact that this is apparently a
2
proceeding separate and apart from that which was the
3
subject of the earlier Appellate Court opinion. So, I
4
don't believe sanctions would be appropriate.
5
However, the motion to dismiss is allowed. No
6
written order is necessary.
7
Anything further on behalf of the Defendant this
8
morning?
9
MR. WEBBER: No. Thank you.
10
THE COURT: Anything further on your behalf,
11
Mr. Osterbur?
12
MR. OSTEBUR: Does that mean I pay him the 87
13
dollars that he requested or no?
14
THE COURT: No, I've simply dismissed the case. I
15
have not imposed any sanctions at this point.
16
MR. OSTERBUR: Thank you.
17
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Thank you.
18
(PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED.)
19
20
21
22
23
24
5
1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
2
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY,
3
4
I, Melissa Clagg, an Official Court Reporter for
5
the Circuit Court of
6
Circuit of
7
foregoing to be transcribed into typewriting, which I
8
hereby certify to be a true and accurate Report of
9
Proceedings had before the Honorable John R. DeLaMar,
10
Judge Presiding.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
____________________________
20
21
22
23
Dated this 25th
24
day of September, 2002
6
ITEM #10 [NOT
USED IN
As provided under the 1st amendment, Redress
of Grievances, of the United States Constitution. This REVIEW of champaign
circuit court of
Therefore the court itself is taken to trial/ NOT by its permission, but by the constitution: wherein the true power of democracy IS ITS PEOPLE; whereby, the redress of grievances of the 1st amendment makes clear a fundamental authority of the people. wherein the 4th amendment illustrates the violation of individual rights & securities which shall not be violated: such as , the consequence of a mock trial (where rule & procedure & grammar ARE considered superior to law & justice by the court); the tyranny of a "foreign language, known only to the court" has entered in shame, as language is the only means to justice without a BRIBE. The invasion and fundamental plundering of the nation itself, is asserted by the belittling of the jury (by not accepting the language of a jury), and making them less than the judge, less than a judicial system, less than a secret society of codes & rules & excuses used to plunder, rape, & simply discard ANY who dare to seek justice, without their "lawyer BRIBE"! These are critical usurpations and they warrant investigation and dramatic change/ they do demand the 1st amendment redress of grievances/ & they command from the bill of rights section 3:
"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."
In support of the testimony, and as evidence
against the court, the procedures and rules of the court as were used in
hearing #02-L-126 Osterbur v. Howell, in the sixth circuit court of Champaign
In the purpose of an appeal against procedures & rules of the court that have successfully invaded, superseded, & removed justice from the courtroom, critical argument is provided as #02-L-126 law and argument/ filed August 9,2002. IN REVIEW:
1. Throughout the long & VEXATIOUS slobbering dribble used by the attorney, neither the concept, nor the words, nor the intent of justice is apparent in any of the lawyers "MOST mundane & frivolous" attempt at convincing the court that justice doesn't matter/ only procedures and rules of the court do!
2. The harassment of the plaintiff by the intentional lack of justice can only be supported in the simple words; "NO intent exists to support honesty, to claim in support of the people & society, or to defend against the plain english of a cause of action". The lawyer claims "I can't understand"/ in which case he commits FRAUD before the court, because a jury would!
3. In court, even the definition of justice is corrupt beyond recognition: "Barron's law Dictionary; synonymous with judge". Therefore "the whim of a judge or the court rule, of a futile & insignificant technical allegation constitutes a factually sufficient means of dismissal without ANY cause of action resembling law/ the intent of law/ constitutional demand or guarantee/ or justice and inherent right. The legal society purposefully & ultimately terrorizes the non-lawyer/ citizen through fundamental distortion & trier's of useless disclaimers for the sole purpose of fatiguing them. The DISHONOR of an absolute discrimination & prejudice of the court, against the non-lawyer, makes us all dependent upon the BLACKMAIL of a law degree or NO justice for the majority. I do not complain of this judge, RATHER I complain of this process/ by which every citizen is "whipped into submission, by the slavery of judicial immunities/ the power to collect excessive & notorious fees, by lawyers/ and the outright denial of merits that ANY JURY would find sufficient & clear. Financial slavery is slavery like any other/ the whip and chains merely the demand to survive or die, as these villains steal the substance from so much work, that nothing is left but the tragedy of lives and families in ruin. And for what: "so that greed and corruption can have more to throw in the garbage dump, in front of the masses."
4. The elements of tyranny are ALL present: the guarantees of the constitution are not worth complaining about to the court, as it has NO ears for such things/ the law is insufficient to a procedural rule or language claim/ The expectation to be heard in a courtroom is littered with traps, formally presented as facts, which bear NO PURPOSE as to the truth or justice & the honor of a court/ the court DEMANDS; "obey me & my rules": I/ we the people of the USA demand "obey the constitution and proceed in justice": the court is reviewed herein and throughout all the cases of the "trial of life" and as many as may be added; as deficient on all counts/ the abusive relationship of the court to a non-lawyer wherein the citizen seeks justice & the court can and many times DOES quash the citizen with lawyer fees that not only demonstrate tyranny; but they are in many cases CRUEL. [if the judge had ruled against me/ thousands of dollars would be lost, not as a honest participation in support of justice/ but as a reality of power and control, and the whim of a judge]. The defense makes no mention of fundamental justice, rather he says "this case is a perfect example of the reason for supreme court rule 137" / therefore it makes a perfect test case, for the purposes of this trial. The lawyer explains: the use of language & argument as would be common & sufficient in ANY jury courtroom, is in his words "vexatious, harassing, and abusive" and should be cause to "charge the plaintiff money/ because [in simple terms] the plaintiff is not a lawyer": many judges agree with this lawyer, and from my own experience in the courtrooms of america "it can be said many people have suffered because of it."
5. As you look through the lawyer arguments one thing is abundantly clear, "the constitution, doesn't matter". NOTHING presented from the lawyer is about honor, duty, dignity, inherent or guaranteed rights/ NOTHING is even about law; instead every case presented as proof, is about the "whim of a judge or a rule of the court, superseding the law."
6. The cost of actions such as these, the DISGRACE of such trivia conducting spurious intrusions into the lives of honorable people, demands change. The social debauchery of a courtroom where, in many cases, the citizen is "raped" by the court or facilitated by the court to allow the lawyer to "RAPE", ALL support the DISTRESS of a society searching for RESPECT! And the reality, that the sanctuary of a courtroom is held in contempt by the legal profession. They are lawyers no more, they are extortionists and simple BANDITS, thieving from the least able to defend themselves, because money is the purpose of the courtroom, and dignity is assigned to the garbage dump.
7. Respect is the critical action, that supports dignity, & conceives HONOR, simply because I/ we deserve it. The court DID prove some respect in this case/ identifying the truth, "that respect is up to the judge"! A FACT which cannot stand, because it excludes others, and makes society vulnerable, to the whim of a judge . Power is corruption, therefore the public, police, & lawyers who work before the judge/ need to be able to throw out "a bad judge".
8. A law library with more than "one million words", exists to confuse & contort, & disgrace the cause of society: because so many words contain VERY many excuses. "To support and defend its rights, its virtue, and its fundamental truths, the law MUST be known by the citizens, therefore the fewest words possible are required! The rights which BELONG to the people, as their guarantee in the court/ MUST therefore be completely known by the people themselves, memorized and clearly stated. These MUST be decided, by vote; and the laws & the issues themselves, which are the descriptions of our lives and our world, and our nation MUST BE decided by vote as well. NO more voting for someone to vote for me, on the MAJOR issues of our time/ WE WILL DO IT NOW!
9. Justice means: that we are EQUAL, by the merit of our common humanity, therefore the respect granted to one SHALL be equal to the respect granted the other. NO situation exists wherein the fundamental rights of one exceeds the other/ instead with HONOR & DIGNITY, EVERY person, shall be treated FAIRLY! NO person shall use language, or the lack of technical expertise, as an injury or attack against the other. Justice & fair play DEMANDS an Ernest attempt to assess & understand the facts as BEST the participants can display them, using technical advise only to disrupt and defend the purpose of justice, which is: To intervene where necessary, to accomplish the fundamental truth of society/ that the weak MUST have an equal opportunity in life, with the powerful interests; the physical bully, & the "snake in the grass". EQUAL means: the time & efforts of my life, ARE NOT inferior to yours;"until such time as the balance of your actions demands change, because of pain & destruction you have chosen to inflict.
10. By the method of equality, as a judge once said to me, "want justice, get a lawyer"! I now return to the court, in the presence of the people, as: "Want to remain a judge, GET JUSTICE"!!!!!!
The penalty sought is removal of the "immunity
clause" of article 3 of the constitution: "from the tragedy of
embezzlement by the
Those judges who sink into decay & disrepute, those judges who contribute to "mafia-like" control of the courtroom/ those judges who HAVE FAILED, in the eyes of the citizens they serve; "Shall indeed be held accountable for every action & responsibility they caused, for every wrong they did deliberately create both financially & with imprisonment/ they are not "god", they are criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.
The penalty sought is also a wage & price reduction, and then freeze for the next 25 years in ALL legal professional matters/ wherein the legal profession has been found as a corrupting influence upon society, in all matters involving justice/ and this is their penalty. The people will decide if you should earn an equal amount to the average tax payer/ or not.
This appeal of trial 02-L-126 "Is in essence, the child of the trial of life"/ finding its place not by the common methods of judicial process, but entering the court as a witness against the court, and then as a trial of the court. This is then the culmination of the trial of life, as a completed redress of grievances, according to the 1st amendment. This trial then becomes a participant in society through the actions of the trial of life, which is distinctly, the creator of this possibility. This appeal/ this final destination of the trial of life, DOES EXIST, "As the moments FREEDOM CHOSE, & THE LIBERTY THE PEOPLE ACHIEVED".
WE THE PEOPLE,
ARE
REVIEW BEGINS AS:
This is the final written response of case 02-L-126 from the defendants lawyer/ it purports to be the issuance of a legal cause to demand money from the plaintiff/ FAILING completely in the foundations of a defense for Howell, the attorney seeks to maliciously attack by the methods of rules, procedures, and old cases. The court rejects his claim, however it is a fair appraisal of common courtroom procedures where one of the litigants is a non-lawyer.
I the plaintiff, at the courtroom hearing to determine if a valid complaint had been raised, worthy of a trial: made only one statement, quote "I have said enough". The purpose of the my statement is a lesson/ NOTHING else is required of me, or necessary by me; no statement, no oath, no affirmation, NOTHING! Therefore the excuses that shall be raised in review of the Danville case of Osterbur v. Selimi: "in this trial of life" regarding my presence at a similar motion trial, ARE MUTE/ there is NO purpose in my presence there, just as there was no real purpose in my presence here/ in the danville case,"I had said enough", if the judge couldn't understand, it is because the judge FAILED", and it is because the judge was UNWORTHY of his position, and a blight upon the respect absolutely necessary within a courtroom of any society.
The rebuttal of defendants: "response to plaintiff's reply memorandum" is as follows [because this is a review of proceedings/ it is set out differently, in type./ first the defendants statement & then my response; each in different script]
NOW COMES the defendant J. BARRY HOWELL, DDS (the defendant), by his attorneys, Webber & Thies PC, and for his response to plaintiffs reply memorandum states as follows:
1. The plaintiff continues to fail to provide any recognizable cause of action or any legal support for any argument that he presents. He does not cite any case, statue or rule in support of his assertions but instead continually refers to "justice". Instead of providing a memorandum of law, as requested by the court, the plaintiff has submitted a "memorandum of reality". This is further evidence that there is no legal basis for this suit, but that the plaintiff's purpose in filing his complaint is to harass the defendant and to abuse the judicial process.
IN REVIEW the use of
language presents an assertion of difference between the language of the land,
& the language of the court! (Simply the court cannot understand the
people, they speak a "foreign language"). The lawyer states: "he
can recognize (means to identify and describe a particular action or thing) NO
cause of action for the court (means, no relationship exists between the law,
in strict interpretation, & the contractual and justice matters or fact
presented/ "he doesn't have a clue, what I am telling the court") OR
any legal support for any argument he presents (means the lawyer rejects the
assertion that the court knows the laws, that the court took an oath to affirm
& support the law, & the constitution as it describes the inherent or
guaranteed rights of a citizen/ "or more simply the court is as dumb as a
box of rocks, and cannot understand anything unless I shove it in the judges
face"). This assertion is meant to belittle the citizen making a case for
him or herself/ the purpose being simply, "to bully the citizen into
spending the money for a lawyer, irregardless of how small the case/ who has
time for this"? This is a constant in the court, thereby the rights and
reasons of justice HAVE LONG AGO, simply been flushed down the sewer/ leaving
us with the arrogant refuse of a court in disgrace. This is only one of the
"common scourges/ tools of the day" used by the legal profession in
every court, making extortion (you MUST pay the lawyer), making blackmail (If
you don't pay the lawyer/ then collusion & protectionism will "get
you, in most cases", to prove they hold the power: pay up one way or the
other). This is discrimination/ discrimination means BIAS, or PREJUDICE, OR
SIMPLY UNEQUAL TREATMENT exists: take a look, while every jury in the land,
uses the language of the land (how could they not), while every jury could
easily understand EVERY concept presented in this MOST simple of all judicial
inquires "the lawyer" insists he cannot understand. The lawyer
insists the court must NOT understand, because the secret codes of the secret
society of lawyers & judges have not been met, & the court capitulates
on this point "because the judge is tired of a fight which cannot be won
inside the secret society, the terrorists are in control". The lawyer next
complains of past court cases, not submitted as evidence in support of the
plaintiffs words: AGAIN this is the most simple of all types of judicial cases/
it is clear, this case needs NO support/ a jury would not require 5minutes to
decide what actually happened by the testimony of the plaintiff, & it is
unlikely a single juror would fail to agree/ even the lawyer for the defense
agrees, and states so, "as he searched and found NO cause, which could be
defended/ therefore he went searching in the past for ANYTHING that could be
used." This is an admission of fact, by the defense lawyer/ that the
plaintiffs case is indeed complete & without fault." The lawyer
asserts that reality has NO BASIS in a legal trial/ this does not even deserve
comment. The lawyer asserts "he knows, that I am lying/ when I submit ,
this is a duty to me". The lawyer asserts "he knows, that instead of
justice, my purpose is to harass/ when it is the defendant who make EVERY
decision which caused this countersuit to occur/ Howell harasses me! His lawyer
is now harassing me by "looking beyond the case & submitting
excuses". The lawyer asserts "that I have abused the judicial
process; by NOT accepting the "swindlers billing". To each count I reply:
the innuendo, the suppositions, the outright lies of the lawyer ARE VERY
consistent with my experience in most courtrooms. Therefore as practiced by
ALL, then either the "law university, or the court system itself"
teaches filth and disease, to the poor student who expects justice. These
"teachers" are then simply a PLAGUE, which has spread through
"MAFIA-LIKE controls" to every corner of the nation: "how did
that happen"? ONLY the
2.The only attempt that the plaintiff makes at providing any form of legal justification for his claims is a statement that he is making a "due process" claim under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. (reply, 2) This claim is completely improper because this dispute is between private parties. The 14th amendment applies only to state action and provides "no shield against merely private conduct". Shelley v. Kraemer, 334, U.S. 1, 13 (1948); Moose lodge no. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Williams v. Nagel, 162 ILL. 2d 542, 548 (1994). "[I]n order to establish a violation of constitutional rights [under the fourteenth amendment], a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct complained of is conduct by the state rather than conduct of private parties". Williams, 162 ILL 2d at 548. The plaintiff does not complain of any conduct by the state, but only that of a private party. This claim is clearly not grounded in fact and is not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, but is merely used by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendant and waste the court's time.
IN
REVIEW; The lawyer asserts a claim for due process under the 14th
amendment is in error. He further sates the 14th amendment applies
ONLY to state action and does NOT extend to the citizen of the
3. The plaintiff continues to use an improper form in drafting his documents, even after it has been called to his attention on numerous occasions. He continues to disregard any procedural rules of the court and any rules of grammar, stating that "neither the court nor the defense attorney are provided pacifiers for the simple tears, "I can't understand". (reply 5). The plaintiff seems to want both the court and the defendant to read his mind in order to ascertain what action and what issues are to be litigated in this case. Rather than making any sort of attempt to follow the rules of the court, the plaintiff blatantly refuses to recognize the necessity for such rules and the court's power to impose them and by doing so, he prevents the court from preforming its duty to ascertain the issues to be decided in the case. He has chosen to file in the law division, purposely avoiding small claims court where the rules of pleading and procedure would be somewhat more relaxed. And by doing so, he has forced the defendant to spend an inordinate amount of time to carefully respond to each of his many broad allegations.
3. IN REVIEW; herein
the lawyer begins his attempt to breech the demand for justice/ by purposely
erecting an attempt to steal justice, by making the court serve his greed. I
the plaintiff, STAND FIRM according to amendment 7
A trial by jury means: If the jury understands, so MUST the court, the lawyers, & the litigants/ the legal process is completed, when the jury understands; it is then their decision. Therefore ALL statements to the court ARE SUPPORTED by the "juries right, the juries need, & the juries language" WHATSOEVER does not agree in the judicial process and stands in opposition to the jury requirements of language, is then a BASTARD rule or procedure of the court and it does not belong in the American system of justice/ (bill of rights section 4) wherein NO PERSON or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, NOT the judge, not the lawyer, & not the litigant. Rather (bill of rights, section 2; that all power is vested in, an consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them). The jury is the people/ the court is the servant and trustee/ the right to destroy the sanctity of fundamental justice and critical right to trial IS NOT for the court to decide, instead the court preforms the singular reality of a rebellion against the people by asserting "the courts' rules, grammar, or procedural infractions; are superior to the demand for justice from the citizen: am I not threatened for these very things. By what measure shall I be made to pay with property & time for "a rule, a procedural infraction, or a matter of grammar. These are expressions of BIGOTRY from the court, and have NOTHING to do with justice & LIFE. The court steals. The court acts criminally, taking what it does not own, and selling it to the bastard legal profession, and whosoever the title fits therein.
4. The plaintiff's renewed attempts to cultivate a cause of action do not "plainly and concisely state any legally recognized cause of action" as required by 735 ILCS 5/2-603. If the plaintiff is alleging a breach of contract, it should be plainly and concisely stated and all other extraneous and immaterial information not relating to that count should be deleted from his pleadings. He should plead the contract and the breach.
IN REVIEW; this is the renewed attempt of the lawyer to win irregardless of social, moral, ethical, or judicial grounds / HE HAS NO grounds of contention, and he knows it/ therefore again he attacks by the only recourse he has: the citizen is not a lawyer! Instead of testimony, the lawyer claims grammar & rules. Instead of reality, where there is no written contract, in effect, he pleads "if its not written down, then he should win." This lawyer supports the assertion that such words as spurious (which translates as "illegitimate birth; BASTARD") is of a more grammatically correct method than This is "mere shit running down, between his legs"/ my words don't need a dictionary for the masses, therefore they are more correct. Reality chooses the evidence, & the facts can NOT be stated without words; therefore testimony IS pertinent to grasping the reality & reason establishes the conduct. The insertion of legal language "735 ILCS illustrates well, the abduction of principle & discipline from the court, to destroy the order of justice and produce a dispute designed by the games played within the court. Justice understands truth as the definition of honest intent, the purpose of dignity and life, and the reality of survival as it ascends from merely a reaction to the definitions of love and true thought as life. The game of the court understands nothing of justice, this is a power demand, to abort the fundamental knowledge of life, and transform substance into "obey me, says the court/ or I will damage you". The lawyer uses the court and its games to establish critical desertion of duty: to assert the reality and display the truth. Therefore the purpose of the lawyer and the game of the court is: HOW shall we abuse, and create panic among any who would assume to come "to their playground, and play with their toys, UNINVITED"?
5. He plainly admits that dental services, including x-rays and an oral examination, were performed by the defendant. (memo, 1)
IN REVIEW; "his ASS is showing"; or "the spurious actions of a man who intentionally throws justice into the garbage, just so he can win money, or pacify his pride, resembles a jackass sitting down, because it just doesn't want to do the work. A predator intent upon easy prey!
6. The facts as plead by the plaintiff are not factually or legally sufficient to sustain a contract cause of action. He has neither stated the contract nor alleged the breech.
IN REVIEW; the facts are plain and concise and of the type and kind as any jury in the nation would receive, without question/ therefore the facts and the legal substance exist as the fundamental right of presentation as I am the presenting party, and what and how I choose to present my case is my own decision and certainly NOT of any concern to the defense. He DOES UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY! Because the language of the land is adequate for ALL descriptions of life, property, truth, and justice, therefore the lawyer LIES.
7. In his signed "memorandum of Reality", the plaintiff refers to $87. If that is the amount in question, the filing of this suit in the law court rather than small claims court under supreme court rule 281, has no other purpose than to harass the defendant and to abuse the judicial system.
IN REVIEW; the lawyer asserts that the money is the issue. The plaintiff demands justice, IS THE ISSUE & the truth of why this case is presented. I have "been abused by this thief/ his accomplice, the lawyer, no longer attempts justice; instead, he has conceived and now executes a plot for money/ proposing that the words of my testimony are harassment (a fact he cannot prove) & the purpose of my intent is "merely to complain". I DO STATE, as I have stated: the "rampant arrogance, pride, greed, & disease of want, that HAS pervaded society/ NOW stands at the precipitous edge of destroying the world itself. As indicated by the trial of life/ this having become a portion thereof/ HAS declared: there is NO choice left, but to fight for life, justice, & truth, in every "theater, and every courtroom". This supposition of disaster is supported by the evidence presented, by history, and by the simple truth of plain and simple realities. While the lawyer or the court may disagree/ unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt/ as this is the purpose of the trial of life/ they may NOT dismiss/ death does not allow fantasies: prove what you believe.
I have chosen, to assemble the evidence of critical corruption within the court/ this case supports the assertion of violence, NOT justice, being the method of the court/ and as this lawyer so skillfully illuminates, "the violence of the court is directed against the constitution, as the court no longer knows anything of justice, but attacks even the constitution, the bill of rights, & ridicules the declaration of Independence by establishing beyond doubt: the purpose of the court IS TYRANNY! How else do you explain the language of the land as insignificant, the testimony of the litigant as harassment, the purpose of a guaranteed right to trial as an abuse of the court, & the fundamental assertion that grammar & procedure & rules are in ANY POSSIBLE WAY, "Superior to law, to inherent right, to guaranteed constitutional rights, or to justice as a definition of plain & true"? Explain the reality of your actions in these matters, and establish critical cause for any and all of these ridicules of justice, and tragedies of right.
8. The plaintiff does not provide any legal foundation for his claims, but states, "I now intend to teach you a lesson," demonstrating his vindictiveness in filing this lawsuit. (memo, 2). This is not a proper purpose for filing a lawsuit, and is clearly vexatious, harassing, and abusive.
IN REVIEW; The lawyer refers to an assertion of primary intent by the defendant/ "the defendant has VERY little to gain, yet arrogance and pride drive him to attack by the collection process, against me. He has been clearly warned, he would have much to lose". Therefore this type of risk taking can only be attributed to the reasons; "either he wants to teach me, to obey/ or he has NO respect for my life at all"/ the assumptions made herein do allow, for the retribution of a lesson in life. PROVE an alternate response was being made and I will apologize/ BUT ONLY after cross-examination. The risk versus the reward, indicates the reality of the decision is NOT "about the money". Justice and the court system constantly expands to the alteration of errant thought and behavior patterns, with lessons for that individual: it is fundamental to the establishment of justice. Should this man NOT be expected to learn better, than to initiate a "swindle" against me/ HE SHOULD LEARN INDEED, this lesson: RESPECT LIFE, including me. Issue will not be allowed, as to the courts being "the lesson"/ I have bought up the issues, because it is my responsibility, the court is the environment where that lesson is given credence as socially demanded, and correct. A judge is only a citizen with a job/ it is our responsibility as a nation to establish and support, what is FAIR and honorable as a punishment we would each expect, and accept for clear misbehavior.
9. The plaintiff did not file a jury demand at the time of filing suit as would be required by 735 ILCS 5/2-1105. Any reference to a jury is immaterial, plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial.
IN REVIEW; The lawyer supports the demand of a judicial system consumed with arrogance & pride. The lawyer NOT ONLY rejects an association with justice, by the court/ he refers to justice as "rule 735 ILCS 5/2-1105". The purpose of "BLATANT TYRANNY" is the exercise of indiscriminate power without regard for its consequences. The lawyer seeks the cause of superiority, "he knew the rule/ therefore he wins the game". AGAIN, justice is not an option, it is a DEMAND & neither life nor justice, nor court is intended to be a joke/ "a court experience changes lives, for many/ injustice changes society/ and life itself deserves the respect of "NOT being stabbed in the back, by people who cannot face the truth". This is NOT A GAME! The lawyer asserts and claims, the filth of a legal game, which has diseased & reduced the court to an epidemic of plagues so vile, "that even the meaning of justice & constitutional guarantee, MUST be described to them in detail, or they cannot understand it at all/ therefore they have trampled justice into disgrace, and preformed the ritual sacrifice of "we have to do this, because it is a rule". A FACT, which must not continue.
IT IS THE LAW (which honors society), THE GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE DEMAND FOR JUSTICE which determines what must be done and what must NOT be done.
10. Plaintiff is
aware of the requirements to follow a definite form and the importance of a
plain and concise complaint. The Appellate order, in addressing Mr. Osterburs'
petition to appeal in Osterbur v.
"The
law is well settled in
IN REVIEW; THE EVIDENCE AND PLAIN FACTS submitted as testimony by the plaintiff needs not be defended as to plain and concise (meanings are plain; free of impediments to view/ or more simply "not hidden in such things as rule 735 illc 5/2-615/ this is not plain: the assumption of this rule, in overruling a testimony is arrogance "plain and simple"). As the interpretation of the law is in language that must be understood BY A JURY/ the court FAILS, because a society cannot obey what it does not understand: therefore the court "lays and prepares a TRAP", and intends to force the non-lawyer into it). The testimony is CONCISE ( means very brief, only the important matters) or more simply "what is required to understand the reality described, is up to the litigant giving testimony; "the arrogance of an elaboration of misinformation such as supreme court rules like these/ qualifies as the basis of a secret code, a secret society which uses this code to control society, and demand domination of society, by refusing what is necessary to reality/ and confronting EVERY situation as a BASTARD DOG, chasing after a BITCH DOG. The only true purpose is demonstrating control and power, and the intent to abuse. This reality is NOT FOR SOCIETY/ the reality is a treason against the intent of all constitutional guarantees of society. They, these legal bastards have sold the right to proceed in the security of our own persons, knowing first hand, what the truth is/ by an unreasonable seizure of fundamental rights: these insist, before justice can be had, "we MUST LEARN THEIR LANGUAGE"! This is tyranny, this is despotism, by the demand, "that our own language is insufficient, in our own land". EXPLAIN the constitution: NOW! And defend to us all your right, to conceive such a scheme to take over and destroy the basis and foundation of this government/ when you remove the people, from participating in their own government, whether that means in court or other, you destroy the government called democracy: PROVE THIS IS NOT SO! To take from me so basic a right as to defend myself in my own language, NOT the legal shit of an ass spewing traitorous rules of an inferior language/ is to take from us all, the constitution itself. That means, YOU ARE A TRAITOR!
The
basis of this legal system is the jury/ whether you like it or not! Plain and
concise IS the constant in every legal case presented/ the necessity to explain
justice and right, as has been done/ exists only to your disgrace, as very few
understand the meaning of any portion of honesty, honor, truth, and certainly
not respect. It is up to you/ to produce factual & real witnesses to prove
the words & legal expectations are beyond a jury to understand/ as for me
"if you insist, I will take your rules "735***" and go into the
public, to see Who UNDERSTANDS, to see who believes our guaranteed rights are
defended by this trash! This is not a game/ this is life, and we are YOUR
EMPLOYERS! YOU, are not our gods. If this
is all "too technical" for you to understand the language of the
land/ then it is the court, & those who practice therein, who lack
sufficient education & they ARE, to be reprimanded or removed; clearly the
lack of technical skills demands removal of all pensions, and any other perk as
well, WE ARE your employers, and we will BE RESPECTED. This lawyer offers the document from case 92-C-1222
Osterbur v.
ITEM #11
CITY FOLDER,
champaign, IL
TO
THE CITY OF
PUBLIC
NOTICE is hereby given as to the following acts of Aterrorism@ committed by the city in support
of its code officials specifically Gerry Bowman, Les Huls, the plumbing
inspector to an as yet undetermined extent.
The
word terrorism is defined as those who seek to change other people by tearing
down a fundamental truth, by or through , Aacts of violence@. Violence is based upon 3 primary ingredients: PRIDE, AI can be the winner here@ GREED, AI have something to gain@ LUST, Agive this to me or I will take it.@
That
which is madness or insanity adds ARROGANCE Athese have NO value to me@.
These
people/this city (by their actions@ DEFY AND DO undermine the fundamental truth of FREEDOM,
and the independent action of
These
are OUR PROPERTY/ OUR POSSESSIONS granted by the Constitution & Bill of
Rights and ANYONE who willfully and with malice destroys or seeks to destroy or
steal these possessions creates war, and abandons the only true defense of
peace and harmony in society.
War
is about power (can you tell me what to do/ or can you take from me anything
you choose/ or can you make ANY law that suits your purpose) ? The answer is
ONLY in defiance of the constitution and bill of rights.
THE
CITY BY ITS CODE OFFICIALS
1
Chained and locked me out of my job for over 3 months, by failure to act
responsibly in granting a permit, THIS IS FORCE! Would it be fair to lock you
out of your job, and remove your helper from his/her paycheck. This was not my
choice/ this is depravity. The city further states I or my parents who do own
the property have no right or basis to change the smallest detail without an
architects approval and then the cities permission. THIS is an attack, an act
of war against EVERYTHING described as Athe American way@.
2
The city added approx. $20,000.00 to the cost of a small and simple house
remodel because they removed me for 3 months, altered the building by demanding
a washer/dryer hookup on the 3rd floor (this required numerous
changes. THIS is extortion, an extraction of wealth by threat. NO choice
existed, DO IT their way, with my /the owners money. This is a game.
Their
decisions will substantially increase the rent necessary to be charged
3
The city by its officials are playing games with my life: the plumbing
inspector refused a faucet I selected and had installed/ then passed an
identical faucet in a different brand. Next the building inspector came and
from 30feet away says the entire building fails because a stairway doesn=t face the direction on the plans.
Mr. Holtz tells me just get structural changes verified by an architect &
he=ll accept my drawings. Mr. Bowman
says 3 weeks later all your drawings must be drawn by the architect BACK to the
end of the line (my whole summers work ruined by these people). THIS is
TYRANNY. I had complied politely with everything they asked only to find Now
the rules have changed. The city presented me with a stop work order 11/3/99
BECAUSE they didn=t give me permission, (you didn=t say Asimon says@). The stairway in question denied
egress from a bedroom / they approved this BUT that=s my problem, not theirs and they
are not interested in reasons. Mr. bowman & Mr. huls came together to
present the stop work order. Mr. Bowman stated he wanted to get this job over
with as much as I did. If Mr. Bowman actually wanted to get it over he needed
only to inspect. INSTEAD he says after the architect draws the plans (EXACTLY)
as I have already built it, a week to ten days later he can review it . I asked
him Ais that the same week to ten days
that became 3 months this summer or what?@ Mr. Bowman just smiles. Insulation is now in the walls
Because the tenant needed it, and I am guaranteed at least a 15 day wait. I
explain the tenants NEED me to keep working one has the electricity off waiting
patiently for me to get the drywall on, the other has a bathroom in disarray .
Mr. Bowman says that=s substandard living conditions and
threatens move them out and pay for their lodging elsewhere.
The
city by its officials are playing games with the inhabitants of this building;
a clear & deliberate abuse of their needs and a definable disregard for
their importance as citizens of this place, This is arrogance. NOTED the city
has not carried out this threat so far.
FOR
THEIR DEFENSE, they say: Awe didn=t approve any changes@.
The
question is asked Ais this not communism with the
exception I get the entire bill@?
NO
life safety / building safety concerns were ever mentioned ONLY: you didn=t have my permission/ You didn=t have a right to make ANY decision
about this property without permission/ and it is consequently inferred A we are just to stupid to create a
simple floor plan suitable to the needs of a tenant and tenants ARE FAR TOO
STUPID to decide for themselves. This is the reality OR a welfare program
exists for the college educated and we get to pay for it.
NOTED
no disregard is created for the architect he/she did their job at a common rate
no complaint is registered rather I had no choice even for the very simplest
design change.
NOTED
this is not about no inspection rather if the inspector cannot recognize even
the very simplest design or structural defect then he/she is literally useless.
If a problem exists then an architect is called.
NO
life safety/ building safety issues involved: Just WE WILL CONTROL! This is a
true and intolerable usurpation of my rights, my liberty, my freedom, & my
work and or property. NO life safety/ building safety exists in a washer/dryer
hookup. YOU have no right. FURTHER what right do you claim to invade the
business called Laundromat and call them undesirable?
NO
life/building safety exists in anything but egress, structure, & fire. How
I arrange the inside or the outside is not your domain.
For
egress, demand is made to achieve a 1 hour fire rating in a small house when IN
FACT the smoke alone would kill anyone not exiting within the first 10 minutes
of a major fire. If the city officials don=t agree they can buy this house and occupy it for a minimum
of 1 hour while the lower floors are on fire. In other words PROVE this is
important. As to the building, smoke and water do very considerable damage.
For
structure, their argument are irrelevant as this is a remodel and a demolition
permit is not required. IF I remove structure and utilities & the house
doesn=t fall down/ THEN I can surely add
a little more structure without concern. Further argument about duty falls mute
as people resided in the building during this process, and were never in any
danger.
For
fire, history proves a license is unnecessary : Heating & air as well as
electricity don=t require it ( these are exempt
from a license). Case closed.
The
plumbing inspector has required a design equal to the needs of a Askyscraper@ located above the arctic circle.
Whereas until recently a much simpler design was used. NOTHING has been gained,
do sewers installed over the last 100 years not work/ where is the need that
justifies this substantial increase in cost. Rather the plumbing code has
departed from sanity and thinks everything is a biological attack. They prove
themselves not only ridiculous but stupid. I now have 3 drains for water heater
pressure relief valves ( the occurrence of opening of these valves is extremely
low). Each drain has a trap, and each trap must be refilled with water
physically, every 2 weeks or they will dry out (creating an open hole for sewer
gases to come out). In terms of life expectancy of the installation, the
reality is a tenant must carefully monitor this trap every other week and it
must be refilled 2600 times .(roughly).
Its
a good thing ignorance isn=t catching OR is it? All the inspectors in the nation are either
unaware or unable to change this or just don=t care! Some plumbers say to fill it with light oil but I
have seen this done and insects even mice crawl in and die and decay (a health
hazard).
Mr.
Bowman was initially worried at receiving my preliminary lawsuit, later he just
smiles at me: a review asks the question what has changed?
I
have been to 5 of the major law firms in champaign
Option
1: Alawyers love to say a man or woman
who defends himself is doomed to fail in court@. Why: because JUSTICE doesn=t matter! IF justice did matter NO
tricks, NO latin, NO rules contrary to finding truth would exist. I have PROOF
neither justice nor law nor the constitution matter.
This
is
It
is my experience Court doesn=t mean justice/ court means , how well can you talk/ how many people
are watching! LAW doesn=t mean constitutional/ rather law
means plagued by insignificant details. Lawyer means Irregardless of who is
hurt.
This
is Athe American way@ and it does need to be changed.
NOTED THIS IS NOT a blanket statement of corruption, rather it is a beginning
recognition of problems, a necessary fact.
My
freedom, my liberty, & my Equality (therefore ours as a nation) was SOLD,
by lawmakers who believe Ait is a necessary evil@ . Code enforcement has truly
become in this city in
The
reality of plumbing and its state enforcement is comparable to AMafia methods@ They tell you
These
people STOLE from me, my money, therefore a portion of my retirement, my summer
thereby damaging the relationships claimed by working together as a family, the
peace and tranquillity of that relationship and for no better reason than
arrogance & its result cruelty (to damage anothers life simply because you
can ).
The
preliminary lawsuit directly challenged these people to show me Ahow bad/ how corrupt are you@? They have answered by lying in
ambush to attack this residence. The electrical inspector is exempted to date
as he has done his job so far. Am I different than any other citizen? This is
contempt.
These
people created a situation where my choice is Abeg or fight@!
This
is a reality which consumes EVERY written article or right belonging to an
American citizen: By destroying our FREEDOM which for this purpose means (the
right without a compromise of any kind to make our own decisions WITHOUT asking
permission or requiring approval from any source). As to quality of work
(construction) I am innocent until proven guilty/ in other words I demand to be
EQUAL in law to the pitiful excuses made
in situations Awe can=t do anything until he/ she makes
good on that threat@!
By
destroying our
By
destroying our EQUALITY; prove me wrong or leave me alone!
Be
it known, it is my true statement: I did NOTHING to create this situation,
these code officials chose for themselves. After they stole my summer and spent
my money for NOTHING, then I said , prove your right to do this.
Do
remember Mr. Bowman is NOT in complete charge, the city mayor, the city manager
(his job) are. and all information was personally delivered by me to the
secretary of their office, and they did nothing.
To
the city council: YOU are to make a decision here.
Inform
your inspection department they shall not step upon this property without a
witness on my behalf and a video recording made Every word and action is to be
recorded.
It
is my testimony: I asked the zoning commissioner of the city of champaign about
this property and he GUARANTEED me the city of champaign wanted to work with
people like myself, to improve older properties and would
YOU
ARE informed a fine of $1,000,000.00 per day for each an every day of work
stoppage will be presented for the illegal pillaging of my RIGHTS as an
AMERICAN CITIZEN. The fine to begin on 11/11/99 and is retroactive UNLESS these
problems are CORRECTED.
MY
DEFENSE IS; NO MAN OR WOMAN died for the right Ato ask your permission, or be forced to pay
according to someone else=s whim or rules, NO one died to
create a law library which NO human being could even think about reading in a
LIFETIME!
If
I am FREE then YOU ARE TRESSPASSING into my life my/our greatest possession!
If
I have
If
I am EQUAL then you cannot control my
life or my work and have taken the intent, the words, and the sacrifices made
for the Constitution and Bill of Rights of America and committed TREASON; an
act defined by selling (a disgrace) what can only be described as Athe heart & soul of America
FREEDOM, LIBERTY, & EQUALITY@ and you should be ashamed.
Do
not assume, I call
ITEM #12
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191
CR 2500 E
ST.
JOSEPH IL, 61873
VS.
defendant
This letter is amended
7/15/99 as follows: the date presented to the city is believed to be 6/29/99.
Mr. Bowman is changed to Mr. Gerry Bowman. Mr. Holtz name is changed to Mr.
Happ. The secretary involved, is thanked for her help in presenting the
drawings and being professional in as much as the situation allowed.
The initial letter reads:
(taken from the hand written/ and copies of law)
to: City of
from: James F. Osterbur
RE: pending lawsuit
Please be informed your
code enforcement official a Mr.@ Craig@ Bowman HAS COST ME MONEY, intends
to cost me more; Mr. Bowman was questioned today, regarding the LAW which supports
his authority. Mr. Bowman Replied AI=M NOT PLAYING THESE GAMES@! Mr. Bowman believes the $2000.00
or so I have spent waiting/ the $1500.00 or so HE INTENDS I should spend/ the
$2000.00 or so more he is costing; IS A GAME! MR. BOWMAN IS WRONG.
The LAW Mr. Bowman refers
to IS REPEALED BY these papers THEREFORE his attempt at authority IS
HARASSMENT.
YOU, as the city of
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191 CR 2500 E.
ST. JOSEPH IL 61873
LAW
225 ILCS 305/5 & 305/6
for repeal of act, see
note preceding 225 ILCS 305/1.
Section 4.10 of the
regulatory sunset act ( 5 ILCS 80/4.10) provides for the repeal of the
architecture practice Act of 1989 unless, under 5 ILCS 80/4, the general
assembly enacts legislation providing for its continuation.
General Provisions
regulatory sunset
5 ILCS 80/4.1 THROUGH 5
ILSC 80/ 4.6 Repealed by P. A. 90-580 &, 3, effective may 21 1998.
5 ILCS 80/ 4.5 [Acts
repealed December 31, 1989]
(3) ATHE Illinois Architectural Act@, approved June 24, 1919, as
amended.
PLAINTIFF
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191 cr 2500 E
VS
DEFENDENT
DEFENDENT
STATE OF
PURSUANT TO:
The letters & Laws,
presented to the city and its code department on 6/28/99 & 6/29/99 are
attached. The following statements are added as preliminary to future court
proceedings. Be advised, time to create a proper document and all necessary
laws to support this document shall occur, BUT not until late fall/ early
winter. Therefore this is primarily an informational disclosure, at this time.
YOU ARE INSTRUCTED, to prepare, and PROVIDE any information you feel pertinent
to the outlined realities involved OR accept THESE DEFINITIONS SHALL DEFINE
& DISTINGUISH THIS CASE.
ACCORDING TO THE
FOLLOWING, this case is outlined as:
Here we do truly divide as
city & citizen, OR more properly as employee & citizen, creating an
OBLIGATION within the court to establish the difference between authority/
Mr.
Bowman REMOVES the architects authority & license, by REFUSING to accept
the architect has Reviewed the plans (and found them acceptable)/ talked to the
builder (ME)/ visited the site/ & stamped the revisions required. IS Mr.
Bowman a licensed architect, that he may oversee this one? If not who is the
authority/ IF Mr. Bowman, WHY was this architect needed? Rather the architect
IS THE RECOGONIZED AUTHORITY, and Mr. Bowman plays power games. RESULTING in an
additional charge to me of $1800.00 for nothing but Aprettier pictures@.
Further,
it is commonly draftsmen, NOT licensed architects, who do the actual drawings,
therefore I am Aequal@ (no license).
This lawsuit is expanded
as follows:
Protection
by the government is: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS / FUNDAMENTAL RESOURCE/ PROTECT US
FROM BEING ATTACKED. Not attack our rights/ PROTECT OUR POSSIBILITIES, AS
EQUALS!
Reality
knows the BEST, we can do for each other is: LET ME BE FREE!
The
truth says: Payment received for freedom with EQUAL possibilities means,
Resources are shared (what BELONGS to everyone, belongs to no one: as a
concept/ not a reality; the simple meaning, what the hands of humanity did not
create, CANNOT be called Atheirs to own@/ DO you own property? Rather the
government leases it to you through property tax). People ARE responsible for
themselves (freedom means NO other way exists) Government is the mediator NOT
the ruler. (a Afriend@, NOT a king).
EXPERIENCE shows a Adrop of authority, turns into a
raging river@ and the return to Aa drop of authority@ IS LONG OVERDUE. The Constitution
DEMAND of AInalienable Rights@ HAS been replaced with Athe expert MUST be obeyed@ and a life of freedom has been
removed with the words Alife safety/ WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY@.
As evidence to the NEED
FOR CHANGE and the common harassment through a DISREGARD FOR JUSTICE. The
following cases are introduced AS NO RESPECT FOR THE CITIZEN EXISTS/ NO RESPECT
FOR JUSTICE IS ALLOWED OR GIVEN/ THE CONSTITUTION & BILL OF RIGHTS ARE
CONSIDERED A AHOAX@ BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by me! / A CHANGE IS DUE.
Regarding the suggestions herein, these are suggestions Ameaning a beginning discussion@, and no more; specifically
intended to start the process of discussion as needed within the terms created
by a petition to the government for a redress of grievances.
The United States Supreme
Court case
titled AREDRESS OF THE PEOPLE@
These papers are developed
from the federal appeals case #94-1943 & #94-1944 and was submitted but not
accepted by the USSC, no reason given. The Judicial committees of both senate
& house are contacted with appropriate materials They are not interested.
The preliminary cases were handled as Aany common citizen might@, searching every avenue for assistance. The secondary
federal cases exist as DIRECT confrontation; DO YOUR JOB!
ATREASON@, defined as adhering to the enemy,
giving aid & comfort to those who DO CHOOSE AGAINST TRUTH as applied by the
Constitution of the U.S. & its Bill of Rights; does not have a statute of
limitations.
Treason is By whatever
means, an attempt to destroy the government of a nation. The destruction stands
as 3 FEDERAL APPEALS COURT JUDGES, DEFIANCE OF THE LAW!
This case WAS about
JUSTICE , AUTHORITY, AND CITIZEN RIGHT! Therefore it is a proper and fitting
EVIDENCE of AWHAT is wrong@.
Any reference to Aredress of the people@ as invalid; returns as a
description of authority A gone mad.@ PROVE these words do not
illustrate a justifiable NEED for change, among those in authority positions in
this nation! Reality says these words DO PROVE, an encroachment, critically
similar to a rebellion from within, just the same as Alife safety@ redefines freedom & right, as
OBEY & PAY, I command you!
Communism MEANS nothing is
justified according to FREEDOM,
Here city & state will
say: LIVES are in jeopardy, we must defend the people who cannot defend
themselves! Even one life in a million is too many.
Aren=t they RESPONSIBLE/ do you Asee@ how VERY IMPORTANT/how VERY ARROGANT they are (the
weight of the world is upon their shoulders, and we are simply riffraff who
must be controlled)/ HOW did society survive without these people commanding
our every move?
Clearly these ARE
RESPONSIBLE for EVERY TINY SCRAPE on EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL! We certainly don=t need insurance, the city/state
employee is RESPONSIBLE! We surely don=t need a courtroom, the city/state employee is RESPONSIBLE,
THAT=S THEIR JOB! And IF its their JOB,
then its their RESPONSIBILITY.
There=s only one problem, the people who
say they ARE RESPONSIBLE/ DO put other people in jail when something goes wrong
Acriminal negligence@. The people who say, BY THEIR
POSITION OF AUTHORITY, they ARE RESPONSIBLE ; DO say Anot me@ even if they were wrong/ ignorant/
or negligent in their actions.
CLEARLY, the city/state
wants Acommunism, with a new twist@. In a communist state the official
is RESPONSIBLE/ In America the official simply A says NOT me or BLAMES someone else/ AND FORCES
PAYMENT@. In a communist nation this is
called EXTORTION.
LIFE means, An Individual
RIGHT/ an Individual Obligation/ an Individual purpose. More simply, a million
people can NOT be morally made to pay with their own lives, to protect ONE
stranger, who may or may not benefit. Rather protection IS DUE for family, for
Individual NEEDS, for those who are loved & cared for/ and YOU the
government employee, TAKE THIS MONEY and throw it away, gambling someday
someone may benefit.
Reality knows TODAY family
& need, & loved ones WILL benefit 1,000,000 strong from this very same
(I/WE EARNED IT) money: instead of your Amaybe one out of a million might benefit@. YOU ARE WRONG!
City & state WILL say Aits more than that/ what if its you@? The answer simply: Compliance IS
AN AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE, being fully informed & allowed to vote, without
alternate interpretations later, the people DO have a right to, A PAY for what they want.@
An offer WAS made to each
official in Aredress of the people@ CHOOSE between the law &
constitution, between Justice & an honest answer, OR cover up the choices
of your underlings.
You are given warning as
to the direction & the determination of this lawsuit.
JUSTICE, is worth the
fight Irregardless of the outcome.
Regarding the complete failure
of respect at the code department, over the issue, ARETURN to the beginning of the line@, after a 3 week wait. PROVE THIS
IS FAIR! Do I not have a right to change my mind? And if I do, what=s it to you, the plans had NOT been
reviewed yet. You condemn me to wait AGAIN, saying I changed my mind, therefore
3 weeks of waiting count for nothing. THIS IS HYPOCRISY!
This lawsuit IS NOT about
codes & inspections, Rather this lawsuit is about power. It has been
approx. 7 weeks now since it was possible to start work, and I am still weeks
away from starting. This ONLY because the code department HAS created an
arbitrary government authority over me. Instead of being almost done, I am yet
to truly get started.
Here the city & state
will say Acodes make this necessary@!
I say: LIBERTY &
FREEDOM CAN NOT BE DISSOLVED OR NEGLECTED by any part of this government/ a
change is due!
I simply ask for justice.
Justice in a FREE LAND, means, RESPECT IS an obligation of the government to
its citizen. Respect means Athe government@ is NOT my ruler/ the Agovernment@ is NOT greater than the citizen
(NO expert exceeds my/OUR right)/ & happiness as a society, is achieved by
TRUE INDIVIDUAL participation. NOT voting for someone to vote for me RATHER
VOTING FOR MYSELF, to determine the fundamental direction & meanings of
life, liberty, & government intervention. FREEDOM IS NOT, open for
discussion, FREEDOM IS A RIGHT!
This is not Asimple rule@, this is FUNDAMENTAL LAW/ OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. More simply The Declaration of Independence AYYWe hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed;Y..@
This is our 1st
amendment RIGHT, to petition for a Redress of Grievances, and be heard.
This EXTENSIVE depiction
of REFUSAL to be heard, DOES indicate a Aredress of grievances@ CLAUSE, should be: The public RIGHT and METHOD of
oversight to what the government is doing. The proper method being: at the time
of elections a VOTE shall also be cast yes or no; DO you think ATHIS@ needs review? By two-thirds yes vote, the Agovernment@ SHALL present its case/ the
evidence to the contrary SHALL be presented/ and the people SHALL CHOOSE,. THIS
IS
A few, will argue Ano right@ & the Agovernment can=t function this way@.
RATHER, the 1st
Amendment not only guarantees this very right, BUT ESTABLISHES IT. Mass Media
now DOES make the intent of the Afounders of
A DEMAND IS MADE: IF You
are truly interested in Alife safety@ then prove it by fighting genetic mutation,
which means simply NO respect for order/ NO respect for life: what happens when
reality proves, DEADLY! WHERE WILL YOU HIDE, when mutation rather than order
exists? The arrogant want to prove mutation created order, ATHE EXPERT@ says, mutation created an orderly
progression (even they admit ORDER CAME FIRST)!
REQUIRE this answer: What
came first, the heart, the blood vessel, the brain to control, the lungs &
stomach to feed it, hands, eyes, ears, food, etc, or perhaps the rest of the
organs to clean it; exactly what ORDER did these things come in REMEMBERING if mutation created these things,
which one wasn=t needed? IF these Aexperts@ DO NOT UNDERSTAND this the
SIMPLIEST of all relationships, THEN prepare for the worst, BECAUSE they ARE
literally Aplaying games, with life, with ALL
foods, gambling like monkeys in a nuclear power plant, Aplaying with switches@. HOW BAD COULD THIS BE? TRUTH
SAYS: Across the line@ and mutation WILL destroy order by
destroying LIFE! PROVE ME WRONG!
The words here ARE LITERAL
Alife safety issues/ REALITIES: WE
ARE THE GOVERNMENT AND IT IS OUR RIGHT AS A WORLD, TO DECIDE! A Abrave new world@ IS simply an excuse to Aplay god@. Humanity DOES want this/ the
gamble is Athe chain of life@ (from the organisms that dissolve
waste, to the processes that control foods, to the chemicals that form our
bodies and everything in-between) the ONLY question is WHAT will fail first?
THEN the human answer Awe must exterminate this/ these
people to protect ourselves before it spreads@. A.I.D.S. IS a mutation disrupting the order of the
genetic code, how many more mutations like this one and MUCH WORSE are coming,
the proper answer ATOO MANY TO SURVIVE@.
IF you know what your
doing, then you can take DNA and predict EVERY SINGLE EFFECT, FROM EVERY SINGLE
GENE. (am I wrong). PROVE how over 6,000,000,000 individual genes creating
INFINITE possibilities PLUS how the interaction of EVERY SINGLE GENE RELATES TO
EVERY SINGLE OTHER GENE IN EVERY SINGLE LIVING CREATION WORKS, and then I will
believe Aa small but dangerous possibility
exists@. BUT do remember Alife is an ordered structure, NO
MUTATIONS, in your explanations are allowed to exist. SHOW ME/ US WHERE
MUTATION proves life came to be as an accident? LIFE SAYS: BY ORDER &
DISCIPLINE & TRUTH (an expression capable through reason) WE ARE ALIVE! Let
Athe expert@ define
LIFE
Because this definition
EXISTS AS RESPECT or applies the human term intellect, as if arrogance was
wisdom. WISDOM says DON=T TOUCH IT, BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE.
IS this not a Alife safety issue/ IF they are
wrong, you die! BECAUSE, order and nothing less, keeps us ALIVE!
EVERY GOVERNMENT DECISION,
which may cost lives (EVERYTHING) IS STRICTLY A AWE THE PEOPLE@ DECISION, by vote.
IF You are truly
interested in Alife safety@ then prove it by fighting the use
of antibiotics as a means of keeping Aanimal factories@ in business. THESE methods create ASUPER VIRSUS/ SUPER GERM WARFARE@. PROVE ME WRONG! If you can not,
and you can not: IF you could, NO one would by sick. Then you must stop the
making of money, is greater than the reality of NO MEDICINE WILL HELP!
Are genetic alterations in
plants any less/ what happens to the worms, bugs, birds & every other life
form which contacts a food source/ and what happens to the lives that touch
these things AND SO ON! The
government answer Awe testedYY@ The REALITY You saw, what you
wanted to see Adollars and power@!
ETC,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ETC!
Some will say HE HAS NO RIGHT
to say these things!
I say YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to
do these things! PROVE ME WRONG!
According to the true need
and wisdom of those who wrote the first amendment AY..to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.@ A number of articles depicting an
authority Agone mad@ : DRUNK on the power of the Aexpert@, will be added.
The TRUE question, as a
foundation to the experience of being an American citizen, from which ALL
RIGHTS & ALL AUTHORITY, BY LAW exist; is simply this:
DEFINE FREEDOM?
ACCORDING TO ITS MEANING:
The Constitution of the
The Bill of Rights
And ALL LAW
DO exist as MY/OUR
GUARANTEED RIGHTS
The MEANING IN LITERAL
TERMS
PROTECTS
DEFENDS
DEMANDS
AND guarantees my ABSOLUTE
RIGHT to question this government and be answered!
AND, as defined by
FREEDOM, to live an honorable life, without government intervention.
TO LIVE within the meaning
of HOPE: that our lives DO belong to us, and our Nation, Our World DOES BELONG
to US ALL, even the unborn.
Instead of respect
government authority, without question: Interpreted these words say; RESPECT
LIFE & FREEDOM &
Instead of Anothing we can do@, these words say, WE THE PEOPLE
ARE THE GOVERNMENT!
SHOW US the error in these
words?
TO, the people I know
The lawsuit presented with
these words could have consequences, beyond its simple duty to defend and create
justice; This lawsuit confronts me directly, I did nothing to create it
THEREFORE it is a duty to me.
The lawsuit is based upon
constitutional issues and once presented to the court, These issues cannot/
WILL NOT be easily dismissed.
Therefore an audience may
gather.
Therefore a stock market
may become nervous ( a nation run by its people, means business will consider
it Aout of control@)
Therefore Agenetic business@ represents a approx. 100 billion
dollar investment. IF society even hints, at STOPPING THIS, The entire
investment is LOST.
This coupled with
possibilities of grain & livestock business loss due to NOT BEING ACCEPTED
(genetically altered).
Agriculture is roughly
half of the
The stock market is
supported by 3 VERY SIMPLE IDEAS:
It can=t happen here NOT now things are
too good.
The government shall Amake an adjustment@ to stop any real trouble.
We are
Aexperts@ would laugh at these sayings; Aexperts@ have been adjusting for 30 years.
Carefully adding weight to the burden of lies which support the economy &
stock market.
The debt is approx.
350,000.00 per working man & woman IS THIS A PROBLEM?
TRUTH DESTROYS LIES!
The Aredress of the people@ contains words intended to change
medical billing and MORE, THIS TOO would not necessarily be safe.
This is your warning,
whatever decision you make; you WILL live with/ just as I must live with
whatever this decision brings like it or not.
Sometime around August 8,
the media will be notified
JUSTICE is worth the
price, anything less is simply Aa growing bomb@, waiting to go off.
THE AD
A lawsuit in its
preliminary stages, seeks your input; primarily evidence associating authority
without constitutional law (a government in need of change).
A copy may be picked up at
for and copied as desired, but not sold, beyond the expense incurred. SEND NO
MONEY! Rather correspondence to box
royal IL 61871
Selections of the lawsuit
to portray its content include:
AA great deal of blood soaks these
documents (the Constitution & Bill of Rights), given for the single purpose:
as written, NOT interpreted by individuals/ but as accepted by the MASSES, WE
THE PEOPLE@!
AReality knows the BEST, we can do
for each other is LET ME BE FREE@!
A According to the true need and
wisdom of those who wrote the first amendment YY.to petition the government for a redress of
grievances. A number of articles/ evidence depicting an authority gone mad:
DRUNK on the power of the expert, will be added.@
YOUR HELP IS NEEDED.
As this BEGINS your 1st
amendment right & responsibility as Awe the people@. The description becomes: to attain a true Agovernment of the people@ as defined by the Constitution:
CHOOSE?
TO
FROM JAMES F. OSTERBUR
RE: LETTER 7/30/99
AND IN PARTICULAR DEFINE
FREEDOM? Last 2 pages.
You are then to EXPLAIN:
WHY, TRUE LIFE SAFETY issues, according to the descriptions given ARE A
COMPLETE FAILURE excused from the public trust by men & women who think
they know more than all of us, put together. Not only a Tyranny, BUT AN
OUTRIGHT LIE.
Secondary to this you are
to explain why your code department harasses rather than helps/ your response
is limited to this lawsuit as defined.
For the purpose of
Clarity, I am 46 years old and not controlled.
Because the current owners
of the property at 1712 W.
You are given the
following choice: IF you agree to enter court with ATHE SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING@ we both agree, this is a case that
can only be decided at the United States Supreme Court level and the Judge
decrees it to be so, THEN I will change the lawsuit to ease (you may recommend)
your involvement. You will give me a sworn affidavit, indicating this choice.
We will also meet with the judge prior to my filing to adequately prepare
against unfair practices.
This case WILL only end at
the USSC or before the public. CHOOSE?
The last date to accept
this offer is 9/01/99.
You are given notice: I Do
intend to multiply this lawsuit again & take a VERY CRITICAL VIEW
particularly of Ayour definitions@ instead of simply stating the
problem.
You are reminded Asmall keys open very BIG doors@, as you have recognized by now. If
you think I am concerned with winning or losing YOU are wrong. I am gathering
evidence and only the people shall decide what to do with that evidence/ not
me.
Preparations for Awar@ begin after 9/01/99 assuming a negative answer.
ITEM #13Re-typed for electronic transfer space
CITY OF CHAMPAIGN LEGAL DEPARTMENT
JULY 30, 1999
Frederick C. Stavins city attorney
Trisha A. Crowley assistant city attorney
Joseph E. Hooker assistant city attorney
Shaun K. Stuart assistant city attorney
James F. Osterbur
2191 cr 2500E.
Re: 1712 W.
Dear Mr. Osterbur
The building safety division of the fire department has referred to the legal department a number of documents you have prepared and assembled regarding an application for a building permit for the above-referenced address. While I am having some difficulty understanding the meaning of these documents, there appear to be three basic assertions in them. First, they allege that Mr. Gary Bowman and the building safety division have unlawfully denied you a permit for work you wish to do at 1712 W. Clark by applying requirements or conditions to your application that are not required by the law. Specifically you allege that the Ill architecture practice act of 1989 has been repealed, and that therefore, you are not required to submit building plans prepared under the direct supervision of a design professional.
Please note that the documents that you provided refer to the repeal of a predecessor to that act, the ill Architectural act. The provisions for repeal that you cited are part of the regulatory agency sunset act. Those provisions provide for an automatic repeal date for regulations affecting various professions unless the general assembly enacts legislation for its continuation. It is easy to see how you could have misinterpreted the meaning of the documents you found. In this particular instance, the regulations were re-enacted under the new title, the Ill architecture practice act of 1989. The current act, is not scheduled for repeal until dec 31, 1999 under the regulatory agency sunset act, located in the Il compiled statutes at 5 ILCS 80/4.10. Once again, that provision provides for such repeal only if the general assembly fails to enact legislation for its continuation. If legislation has not already been enacted to continue the current act, it in all probability will be enacted soon, prior to that dec 31, 1999 date.
Your second major contention appears to be that if the laws relied upon by staff to impose various conditions upon your building permit application are currently in force, then they unconstitutionally infringe upon your rights as a property owner. There is no Il state or federal case law that I am aware of that would support you claims about the constitutionality of these regulations. The city is certainly unwilling to forgo enforcement of these regulations based on your legally unsupported attack on their constitutionality.
Third, you appear to be asserting that the regulations in question are simply unjust, excessive and arbitrary , and that they should be changed, or those responsible for enacting them should be voted out of office. It is certainly your right to lobby your state and local representatives to change the laws in question if you think they are unfair or ill-advised. Until and unless they are changed, however, staff is responsible for enforcing them in their current form.
If you currently have an attorney who is representing your interests in this matter, please have this person contact me so that I can discuss this matter with him or her. Otherwise, I would be happy to meet with you in my office at some convenient time, during the city's regular business hours, to discuss your concerns and claims. It may be that I do not fully understand your claims or concerns. If I am unavailable when you call the office, one of our secretaries can schedule an appointment for you. In the meantime, it is my hope that you will see fit to meet the requirements of the building permit application process so that you can get your project underway reasonably soon.
Sincerely Joseph E. Hooker
Assistant city attorney
jeh
cc: Gary Bowman, building safety division
j:\leg\word\building safety\Osterbur letter 7-28-99. doc
Responsive and responsible community service
ITEM #14
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CASE # 01-LM-16
James F. Osterbur versus Alit Selimi dated
04/02/01
are there traitors among
us?
The answer is yes/ but not who you think.
The case involved involves a swindle, a
threat, a corruption within the judicial system, an involvement by the state of
IL resulting in a bank fraud, and cases of law which clearly define a judicial
system corrupted.
Evidence is further presented, that the
true guilt of this corruption is the current association of Athe people with their court system/ and the need to change this
behavior as well.
Formal complaint is registered under rule 3
Subsequent to this complaint is a direct
challenge to the CONSTITUTIONAL legality of Athe immunity
of a judge, caught in the act of BAD BEHAVIOR!
Complaint therefore suspects issues
relating to Illinois Jur personal injury and torts conspiracy 9:7 & 9:8 as
probable avenues of retribution
The name of the judge presiding over this
case is left out, in this writing, to preserve any aspect of libel & defamation
of character as may come up to the critical examination of the 1st
amendment. YOU decide, if the name is relevant to your writing and your words/
the Atrial@ occurred in the circuit court for the fifth
judicial circuit of
There is nothing overly dramatic in the
above statement as these words identify a legal system completely OUT OF
CONTROL, and a nation damaged or being damaged or which will be damaged without
doubt because of it! The issue is not about money by the simple descriptions of
purpose/ The reality IS clearly and completely about the power that has
replaced justice, and the arrogance and pride which controls the legal system
in this nation in its place. The consequence of a failure to confront the reality
of despotism, subversion, and the threat ultimately of peaceful existence and
honest interactions among all members of society will become clear. It is a
duty to describe these things in such detail as is necessary to produce an
honest evaluation of the social deprivation and the subsequent devastation as
would and is apparent in the fringe of society already. Therefore the use of
poignant phrase and merciless image is merely the reality of confronting what
has become an Aenemy, rather than a friend@. The Judicial system and its judges of the
To the reader, you are one person, like me;
therefore as you read REMEMBER, nothing is different about this nation than any
other except for the honorable intent of the Constitution and Declaration of
Independence, and its Bill of Rights! IF we lose these, Then we lose their
promise, their hope, and the lives which bought them for us! READ carefully,
and examine your own heart to hear whether it is indeed necessary to review and
repair/ Because if you cast away the foundation of the nation, then you have no
nation left.
Regarding the case above, this judge
Blatantly and without cause, dismissed a case of property in excess of
$46,000.00/ dismissed clear and certain Adamages done@ as if worthless trash/ dismissed the constitution
as if it were his own personal toy.
This applies very distinctly to the dismissal of the case 01-LM-16, wherein the judge uses a rule of procedure to dismiss a legal right not only of property, but of true social significance. The reason Athe judge rules the courtroom/ a king in his own mind, presiding over his/her kingdom@! It is a right of the court to maintain order & dignity. The court refuses order (the social distinction, of justice), The court refuses dignity (the social reality of Amy life has value@) and instead uses an assumption of Aetiquette@ as the means to commit what is a traitorous act. The evidence is The constitutional decree requiring justice is embattled by the court/ the court is its attacker, and terrorist!
Prejudice is a treason, and the consequence of its appearance within a courtroom demand removal of that judge & punishment as if the court intended to make an example of Aany other person@ without regard to the damage done to their lives.
Judicial review is also bound by the pleadings & testimony given:
Here begins the response Athis is too much@ JUSTICE demands a fair attitude as well, as a right! And so it does/ let us review: Of the 12 judges or so that have established decisions legally destroying protected constitutional rights/ one was fair, respectful, honorable, or honest (he did me no good/ but I have no complaint with him) HOWEVER I brought a reporter to that trial, insufficient evidence exists to support the descriptions above, had the reporter not been there. I have complained to the judicial board of review, and they said: Do it yourself, we have no authority, no legal means of any kind to intervene in any case. I complained to the court of appeal and supreme courts of the state and nation and it was plainly indicated to me Aa constitutional defense is WORTHLESS@. I complained to the Judicial oversight committee of the National government and received NOTHING.
What was I asking: I complained of an initiating trial so filled with BIAS & contempt, that when the judge was caught by his own actions in the recorded transcript/ that transcript disappeared from the record. The second initiating case involved a trip to the emergency room of a hospital, there I was treated with such a pitiful prejudice, told to GET OUT by the doctor who never came within 5 feet of me, injected with drugs when I said NO, and was then suddenly admitted to the hospital because they decided the drugs were given in error, and simply abandoned by the doctor. FOR THIS the bill was thousands of dollars/ I paid half and said NO MORE/ the second trial begins!
This third trial represents an outright theft, and a VERY distinct disrespect. The court adds an assault, by aiding and abetting this ass. The court becomes a conspirator to do harm against me, WHY? My suggestion would be, there is a rebellion in the courtroom by the judges/ that to protect each other is preferable to justice! PERHAPS, that the Constitution, Declaration, & Bill or Rights ARE NOTING, so long as the legal toys of subversion, denial, & silence can be use to control their grasp upon power.
What is power: it is the demand & the tyranny to control someone else=s life. This is the opposite of all Constitutional documents/ This is an oppression, not an equality/ this could be a treasonous act.
The future is a creation of the past, the attempts to control all behaviors in the recent past, has only ended in Apeople@ who believe they MUST control, therefore they have a right to control. It is public expectation which has burdened the court & the government, and taken away the sanctity of being Asimply human@. The unending greed is a sign of people wanting to avoid all other people, this changes society & the demands to call what is clearly a DISRESPECT of all human life, changes freedom & liberty and destroys a destiny. Freedom is not an unending disregard/ FREEDOM is a discipline that allows ORDER to expand your life, your peace, your happiness and your society. It is not idiots may decide and drag society into the sewer with them.
An acceptance of reality knows we must make the hard decisions together as a society by vote! To fail means AYOU do ask the judge to be a god to you@. NOTHING compares to the travesty of this single act/ ACCEPT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, and help them to be courageous. Accept your own happiness as a result.
The reality of
this case is now more complex than it appears. I do NOT fight for small &
insignificant matters, therefore the case now becomes a description according
to the filings included, but not yet filed (therefore unimportant to the reality
of what is here and now).By this filing Selimi is moved from a simple
transgressor, to the open stage/ a place he is desperate to avoid/ the gambler
loses.
The question of
fairness arises, the judge too is held against a measure of perfection that is
unfair in this world/ But truth says without a SIMPLE look, into the darkness
of apathy & greed; the concept & the truth of a constitutional basis to
law is dying/ therefore a Ashock treatment is warranted!@
What of me? I DO
NOT desire a spotlight, I hate flattery, I DO NOT LEAD! Therefore duty demands,
an education is required. The concept of duty is a very simple one: when
confronted by a situation which demands, Ayou change it or it will try to change you@. The duty to yourself is not to change unless you are at fault! The
duty to society when confronted with realities that are changing society is to
educate, by the most reasonable & legal method possible. This is my
reality, not necessarily yours. Applied it means, when sufficiently educated, Awhen they know these consequences exist, and society says I DON=T CARE, then enough has been done/ let them go.
In the realm of
education, I add 3 things@:
3. School defenses; the reality of
vulnerability, has become apparent/ and it appears an epidemic of violence is
possible. The clear & unfortunate definition of the typical student
criminal is very simple: the life has been reduced to
This said, reality allows preparations to
be made for limiting the extent of violence, as much as is realistically
possible. Simple knowledge allows only one reasonable method, the introduction
of barriers to contain the individual for at least a minimum length of time.
Critical barriers which would enclose a victim with an attacker are not
options. However a fluid curtain which would blind temporarily and/ or cause a
vomiting sensation to occur, would disable the attackers ability to focus
thereby limiting further mayhem. The fluid curtain or drenching, even if a gas
mask were used would necessitate a cleaning of the lenses, thereby aiding an
escape of the victims.
To keep abuse at a minimum, the fluid curtain
control would be house between 2 bullet proof defenses (shields against a gun
shot). Lever tripped, suitable fluids eject around the person activation to
identify them. Preferably the fluid would mist as well as flood creating a fog.
Installed at every 40 feet or so in the corridors, steel slide bolts belong on
all classrooms as well as a blinding curtain for the window in the door (etc).
The lever should activate the fluid curtain on either side of the station
activated or perhaps motion detectors or sound activation which recognizes
specific gunfire once a single lever is pulled. To aid in location, each
station should contain a different color, perhaps in different shades,
indicating how far into the building. Large auditoriums or classrooms could also
contain fluid defenses triggered at several locations/ to stations pulled to
engage. A alarm incorporated, and so on.
The mechanism itself would be essentially a
pressurized vessel, containing the fluid, a manual trip lever, and a cheap plastic
distribution pipe with small holes drilled into it, mounted on the ceiling or
wall. Plus the bulletproof curtain in corridors. Much like a current fire
protection system. Cleanup is a minimum expense if violence is contained.
The statement of merit, issued for the
prior two cases represented here: I DID NOT, begin these cases. But that does
not mean I didn=t use them to assert a more proper definition of
fair play. Treason is a word without a statute of limitation, & examination
allows the charge can be applied, in a perfect world. In this world, the judges
CHOSE, because the cost was high, in their minds/ the power of the government
was at stake/ therefore they lied. I too have made poor choices & if their
records prove reason & compassion, then I bear no grudge/ let them go.
The power spoken of: The 1st
amendment REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES gives power to the people. Specifically stated/
such things as the Vietnam war, could be taken out of political hands by PUBLIC
VOTE! The second case allows, WE ARE EQUAL and since no one chooses illness, a
simple percentage of income & assets must be applied to the cost of
medicine. 10 percent to a millionaire, is LESS to them, than 10 percent to a
poor family, but it is fair! The money MUST be collected & redistributed
per operation ETC. Insurance of income & assets is allowable, HOWEVER it
must be strictly on income & assets, and have nothing to do with medicine/
the public again becomes a caretaker of the money, not the insurance co.
I, help from a distance. My face, my
possessions, whatever is mine, IS NOT YOURS. Therefore to take what is mine and
SELL IT as conversation or other is a thievery & you can be sued. Do you
not charge the advertiser, therefore the consumer? Therefore If you take my
possession from me, my body, my color, my age, etc/ Then you DO rob me. MY
description is:
I BELIEVE JESUS!
Case # 01-LM-16 initiates in the circuit
court, for the fifth judicial circuit of Illinois, Vermilion county, Danville,
Illinois 61832 at 7 N. Vermilion
ITEM #15Retyped for electronic transfer space
LOUIS E. COSTA,
clerk
STATE OF
APPELLATE COURT,
FIFTH DISTRICT
14TH
& MAIN STREETS
DATED MAY 18, 2001
HON, Darryl
Pratscher, clerk
Illinios Appellate
court
Fourth Judicial
District
RE: OSTERBUR, JAMES
F. V. SELIMI, ALIT
Dear clerk:
The enclosed
document was received by my office on the above date. Since it appears to be an
appeal from vermillion county, the attached document is being transmitted to
your court for filing and consideration pursuant to supreme court rule 365
Louis E. Costa,
clerk
29.
James
F. Osterbur
30.
Roy
G. Wilcox
From
me: this is the only response from the court in this matter.
ITEM #16
A
CASE
APPEALLED
FROM; THE FIFTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT,
CASE 01- LM- 16
JAMES F. OSTERBUR VS ALIT
SELIMI
The sustainable
description; discipline dictates a need to define the order to be used, in this
trial, by me. Therefore understand, I do not prosecute people/ the individuals
involved are merely illustrated by their own actions, NOT attacked, simply
described for their lack of honor or honesty!
It is the fact, not the person,
which is to be tried/ It is the constitutional mandate, that is to be defined
& the people who refuse to honor it, or the disciplines required to sustain
peace. These are to be examined, as fit or unfit, for the job they have sworn
to uphold. Therefore the challenge of this case is to establish and affirm, a
court system Adisease ridden@ by the simple test of: whose side
are you on? I have defined and claimed the constitution and bill of rights, and
legal descriptions of the common citizen. I demand reasonable consideration
according to the true intent of the law/ rather than any judicial mandate of
less stature than constitutional mandate. I refuse and deny any allegation that
the presentation of evidence/ particularly the presentation of testimony in
preparation of the trial/ and the pleadings sent to represent me in the motion
trial were insufficient in any way, to allow the cause of dismissal. And I seek
my guaranteed rights under the constitution, amendment 7: a trial by jury.
The fact, that I must
teach you this fundamental right, seriously implicates the judicial branch of
government, in fundamental sloth or deviant behavior, such as would implicate
this judicial system in traitorous acts. The functional reality, that the
constitutional, bill or rights, and declaration instruments of the nation of
the united states of
The foundation of an
appeal is JUSTICE has been circumvented by one of the following: false
testimony, a biased judge, new evidence, or facts which were misconstrued,
abused or simply unknown at the time.
YOU the court of appeals
were mailed a judicial review of this case; stating facts which could not be
known prior to the outcome of this motion hearing/ the courtroom BELONGS TO THE
CITIZEN, not the judge/ NO compromise will be heard regarding a failure to
appear/ I AM a citizen, the court was notified I am not a lawyer, and no effort
occurred to instruct me, that I must appear where no cross-examination could
occur by law, no physical reference could represent me better that the words
sent, and no assault against the pleadings themselves as insufficient was given
by the judge/ THEREFORE they exist as competent and complete. The courtroom and
its judge SUBSTANTIALLY failed, by refusing the pleadings given. Deliberately
failed by refusing the responsibility of the court to insure the right of trial
by jury, wherein any amount of money or true property was involved. FAILED by
the description of BASTARD, wherein the law & the constitution which
addresses the RIGHTS OF A CITIZEN, was changed by a judge, to become subject to
ANY insignificant rule of procedure. It is JUSTICE and not protocol or bias,
that is fundamental to, sworn to, and demanded from the people, of an honest
court.
I have mailed to (as
indicated); to the state of IL, the judicial review board, to the appellate
court, & to the major and local news organizations. ALL have remained
silent 7 weeks later. Therefore a question arises, of these APROTECTORS of the people@: WHY?
The answer formed by the
reality of the situation is; EACH of these sides with Alit Selimi/ EACH has chosen his ways & his system of Alet him complain, I have the power@. Therefore EACH of you shall be
described by the same acronym for Athe alit Selimi system or ASS@!
Consequently the political
ASS, is considered to have chosen, by the preponderance of the evidence Athis is TOO small, for the trouble
it will cause/ what will I gain?@! The ASS called the judicial review board UNDERSTANDS; it
is merely a public farce, & refuses to be shown, a public disgrace. The ASS
of the Appellate court comprehends the fundamental change demanded by the Constitution,
AND REFUSES. And the ASS of public media would say Aif there is too little money in
this/ then, why support justice, its just shit, money decides@.
Reality then asks of me;
What is possible? The answer explains; an honorable person whose decision it
is, whose sworn duty it is, to insure justice and equality to all/ DOES his\
her job! Therefore honor can not be expected here, UNLESS it is a very big
trial.
A dishonorable person says
Ahow do we fight this menace/ what
power do we have to subvert this call for justice/ what can happen if the
public becomes interested (we should find a stooge)! Here by the reality, by
the need, & by the duty, the TRIAL of the American Judicial System begins.
NOT because I prefer it/ instead duty leaves no other avenue available.
ARE YOU AMUSED?
Truth allows, Ait is not whether government, can
be challenged (it is not)/ INSTEAD, the battle lies in whether the court IS A
LIAR, A FRAUD, A TRAITOR, and an accomplice to crime.@ These can be identified, whether
you reply or not. If you fail to respond, then because this is a case submitted
to the court, Ayou do become a liar/ this is your
job, and no choice exists@. If you hide behind insignificant
rules & mayhem created to establish a Alawyers only@ insurrection, a place where only the privileged few may
go/ then you are a FRAUD, because only power & greed can then buy your
approval RATHER than human justice or legal right, the judge Aplays god@. If you change the rules/ by
changing the Constitution & bill or rights, you DO become a traitor,
because these are NOT for sale: INSTEAD just like the genetic code is Amother nature@; the constitution and bill of
rights are the nation itself (a nation is composed entirely of the reason, that
we do band together for this purpose). The Declaration of Independence is
different in that Ain human terms, it would be called,
the heart & soul of the nation@ defining the need of the oppressed, TO BE HEARD! Therefore
to blatantly disregard & disrespect these words, as a representative of the
people IS to participate in a treasonous act/ to act in ways that disease or
destroy the fundamental needs and promises of EQUALITY as described therein is
not only a theft but an assassination of promises, and a murder of peace in
society! YOU should be ashamed!
Let us review: your army;
the government whose primary concern is Adon=t make trouble for me@; the judicial system whose primary
concern through 3 separate trials of my own is Ato protect the status quo@; & the press whose primary
concern is Agreed and the power to shape
society in their owner=s image@!
AMy army@ so to speak, is listed in the
judicial review already sent, they are: The PEOPLE who have sacrificed their
lives, their bodies, & their time for the constitution & bill of rights
& declaration/ whether they physically stand with me or not, their
existence here is UNDENIABLE! WE THE PEOPLE, examines the fact, that you are Anot gods@, not kings, not exempt, YOU are
EQUAL TO US. Therefore the law summons you to establish the EVIDENCE in this
case, and the others, & prove me wrong.
All the other citizens Atoo insignificant to bother with@, for you/ therefore undeserving of
justice; All those you have treasoned against, by taking away their position in
society as equals, are waiting to see what JUSTICE in America truly is. The
evidence points to contempt from you, a significant number of judges. Contempt
is a LACK of RESPECT for the authority of the law/ the foundation of law, the
foundation of any American authority, the foundation of respect for the
American way is the Constitution & bill of rights/ therefore your need to
defend yourself arises from these/ failure to adequately defend on a
constitutional basis means you have NO defense, and are GUILTY of actions
against the nation.
These are critical
explanations, expressed in the reality of those who died/ those who fought/ and
those who are willing to fight today. In your defense, it is the numbers which
have succeeded against you (in a nation of 280 million, even a 1 percent
dissension IS 2.8 million people whining and crying at this doorstep). The
reality demands; no person can support judgment or decision on their own/ EVERY
decision must point and be confined to, the agreements already entered into by
society (in American society this is constitutional decree, bill of rights
mandate, and declaration of independence expectations). YOU have failed to
uphold this as the determining factor of your decisions, and fallen a prey to Athe loudest voice@. Equality means NO MORE can you
use race or gender or religion, as a wedge. YOU are equal means; An opportunity
is what you get, USE IT!
Access becomes the Aweapon@ required to defend justice /
justice is my purpose! It is a tyranny to Asupport and undermine@ the destruction of dignity (it means I deserve my place
here, because I paid the LEGAL price for it), the destruction of Integrity
(means to accept, that I am responsible for my actions), the destruction of
honesty (because YOU don=t appear to know/ it means; to
accept respect, as part of your life, the part that matters). The destruction
of trust (means, AI can no longer say, you are my
friend@). These things you have traded for
your apathy and arrogance and worthlessness.
These truths examine your
ways and find, you a significant number of judges, in the court system of
Mercy which is also your
task, is based upon an HONORABLE understanding of human nature and work, and
circumstances which support the Acry for mercy, and fair play@. These you have traded for Athese are too stupid, must control/
or just let them fight, because I am too lazy or fearful to intervene, and I
have enough@.
The Aquality@ of humanity, its methods, its
belief, its race, or gender, or religion, or education IS NOT yours to judge/
YOU ARE the people who have sworn to help/ YOU ARE the people who have ACCEPTED the task of defending LIBERTY,
HONOR, AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FREEDOM/ and you have become the cowards who
hide or leave, because your own selfishness or arrogance is more important to
you than these things/ therefore a judge cannot be Aimmune@ you are responsible for the
reasonable actions of a judge in a courtroom; and as the constitution allows
you can be REMOVED, and held accountable.
DO NOT think this is a
call for actions/ THIS IS A CALL FOR JUSTICE! My purpose is Equality, within my
guaranteed rights/ my decision is based upon duty, a failure to correct this,
means society will only suffer for it/ win or lose I do not surrender myself
(means simply I am not for sale/ you will not change me). This is a social
requirement, therefore if society does not want it/ then I have done my Aduty@, and society may suffer all it likes. Access is
necessary to change corruption/ therefore mailings of this specific information
shall occur/ WITH THIS WARNING to all:
Nothing can be solved through destruction, this is not a call to arms, NOT a
call for violence of ANY KIND, this is a demand for justice, & justice is
the resolution of the people themselves, Ato accept each other as equals, and be fair.@ The court is in need of SERIOUS
CLEANING, and no more! The citizenry is largely responsible for this, therefore
look at yourselves as well. The police are reminded, a judge is not the law,
rather a person who is entitled to the law, just as I am entitled to the law
and NOT simply an opinion of the judge. This IS NOT contempt, because the words
are true; to speak less Afactually@ would be a perjury, therefore the Alack of respect@ becomes justified by the truth.
Prove me wrong. IF you can, then AI will apologize/ but if you can not then it is you, that
DO owe me. If I can be held accountable, then so can you/ that is the meaning
of equality, and the definition of justice (a constitutional mandate). That is
freedom, an existence described by mutual respect. The price is; an open
courtroom for every case, preferable broadcast in some manner, because nothing
less can keep honesty within the court. NOT simply the cases I represent, all
cases.
The questions:
Is the law subject to the
whim & insolence of a judge; yes or no?
The correct answer is NO,
the law subjects the judge, to its discretion, NOT the law and its purpose is
subject to any judge, in any matter. It is an actual act, of criminal conduct,
when a judge disregards the true purpose of the law WHICH IS JUSTICE &
EQUALITY, and chooses to side with criminal actions for mere procedural
infractions. The judge does NOT command the law, the LAW tells the judge, and
NO LAW is greater than the citizens it proposes to protect. Therefore NO
infraction or lack of education or expectation of the court can legally alter
the foundation of what these laws represent: The Constitution, Bill of Rights,
Declaration of Independence, & the lives of those whose blood & bodies
paid to protect WE THE PEOPLE, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, etc. How
pitiful, it seems from one end to the other.
The supreme court; doesn=t KNOW: Acount the votes, WITHOUT illusions
of maybe it counts, maybe it doesn=t/ this is a democracy LEARN AND ACCEPT IT.
The supreme court; doesn=t KNOW: to be handcuffed &
taken to jail because the children didn=t have their seatbelts on IS a violation of freedom. Do you
not choose for your own life, your own children/ DON=T bring your asinine values of
moral obligation to Ame@; FREEDOM IS MORE IMPORTANT! And it is GUARANTEED! The
children are under the protection of the parent, NOT the state/ BECAUSE
whatever happens to the child, happens to the parent as well! The excuse of
protection, for the child is a blatant lie. IF you would choose to protect the
child, THEN you choose to protect the resources and environment and debt and
every other reality the future needs, for the child to survive/ YOU do not do
any of it.
The supreme court doesn=t KNOW; the man whose wife had 3
out of 4 children with other men DOES NOT OWE child support for all 4. The
court plays the game Asomeone has to pay@, and someone does! Since this is
of obvious importance to these judges THEY SHOULD PAY/ they intervened/
therefore they are just as involved as the man without a significant connection
to these children. IF the court wants someone to pay THEN WHY should it not be
them! This was a legal matter/ NOT a morality issue. The simple mind says; Atake your morality and stick it up
your ass@ freedom says AI@ do not need to endure your morality!
The critical difference
between the court and the citizen is a simple one: The court represents the
nation & when the honor of the entire nation becomes a disgrace, the court
becomes simply measured, by desperate, stupid, irrational hatred. Useful to
terrorists only/ the most significant current reality of this is the idiots who
inhabited the compound, at
The arguments begin in
brief:
Time limits DO NOT
mitigate this case going forward; the judicial review initiated within this
appeal, Irregardless of insignificant procedural statements, forms, or
otherwise. The court DID NOT find it necessary to inform the plaintiff of
dismissal 2 weeks later. The AMENDMENT 7, demands my right to proceed to trial:
READ IT, for a change! NO court, supreme or otherwise has jurisdiction over the
constitution/ moreover NO interpretation can be justified/ IT IS WHAT THE
PEOPLE SAY IT IS! Any suggestion that this is not true is an impeachable
offense, because WE bought and paid for this right, and it is OURS! NOT yours.
Argument that the motion
papers supplied by the plaintiff are insufficient IS MUTE/ because the
pleadings are only required to sufficiently forewarn the defendant of the
charges and penalties sought, and they do.
Argument that a procedural
infraction, such as not being present {physically} at a motion hearing DOES NOT
supersede the constitutional guarantee of amendment 7. And therefore becomes an
act of criminal negligence, by the judge; in declaring dismissal/ the judge
declared the constitution irrelevant; and his oath convicts him/her of
conspiracy to commit a fraud. A motion hearing does not constitute a trial/ no
cross-examination/ no evidence/ simply a hearing to discuss boundary issues.
Argument that the judge
did NOT understand the nature of the complaint is a blatant lie/ as it is
his/her job to be INFORMED, prior to any decision, and the plaintiff supplied
detailed and relevant testimony prior to this motion hearing. NO possibility
exists that sufficient information did not precede this judgment, to identify a
need and a right to trial existed. Therefore dismissal constitutes a desire to
conspire with the defendant/ therefore a question of the integrity of the
entire process.
Argument that the Aalleged complaint@ is insufficient for trial,
constitutes a decision by the court in direct disregard of the 14th
amendment/ an act of treason.
Argument that the
supporting document, A initiating arguments@ indicates, the responsibility for
removing the Aweapon selimi used@; issues the reality that behaviors
constituting a damage to society/ are subject to social consequences.
Argument that all 3 cases
I have been involved with should not be examined/ subjects the citizenry Ato a military style, government@, wherein the preamble of the bill
of rights, distinctly states WE MUST decide Awhich rights do pertain to them & their posterity, as
the basis & foundation of government.@ Without evidence, how should a decision be made; without
trust how can a judiciary preside.
Argument is entered, as it
regards the 1st amendment AY.to petition the government, for a redress of grievances@. The question is entered: IF a
complete failure of the judicial branch, such as the disease of corruption is
insufficient to ask for a redress under the first amendment, THEN the reality
is Athe first amendment has fallen
victim, to the tragedy of depotism & the arrogance of I am the king.
CLEARLY AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION, CLEARLY A TREASON. The petition is
made, and has been made, and the court is sworn to uphold its reality, and its
meaning to and for the people of this nation.
The court is instructed
SHOW ME MY ERROR or let the trials and examination of Federal Appeals cases
94-1943 & 94-1944 begin.
Redress argument is
restricted to the initial request, which applies the question: DO WE NOT have a
right to end Athe
Here, remembering the
words AWE THE PEOPLE@
DOES initiate the demand
THIS IS OUR NATION, not the official/ the peoples.
The unfortunate
consequence, to follow next; will be the distinct defamation of character, to
persuade any who would listen, that they should believe this is a rebellious
& insolent man with a secret agenda.
Here then, is my agenda:
My choice in this life is, to seek and understand the definitions of love, to
identify the realities of critical truth, and to search within the
possibilities of this life for ETERNITY as described by
The weight of the evidence
relies upon these words: the existence of a written guarantee, IS a foundation
of judicial authority/ a specific tool designed for the citizenry to use. That
guarantee establishes SPECIFIC RIGHTS & DISTINCT DUTIES. That guarantee is
THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, & the expressed concerns and real
promises of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. It is irrelevant what you or I
want/ these guarantees stand between us, as the critical barrier, to the
authority of citizen or official, the Aguarantees@ decide.
The question therefore
becomes; WHO SUFFICIENTLY stands within that authority, If it is I, then YOU
must accept the duty required of you. IF you can support the position currently
held by the court/ then you MUST identify the evidence, justify the decision,
and support a critical Acommunity@ education project, to REDEFINE
these documents, and REORGANIZE their supporters. WHY, should WE the people,
live a LIE; show us the truth! If you do so, then welcome to my situation;
wherein your failure, becomes my problem. The introduction of Athe judicial review@ (by information gathered), created
a fear in selimi/ fear produces a hatred, and hatred often ends in revenge,
when it does not end in justice. If you think Ayou will be protected@, Reality says, Ato steal these foundations of hope & strength of a
nation, WILL produce results@. NOT from me, I am a man you brought here/ I did not choose to come of
my own/ your insolence required it/ your lack of integrity demanded it/ your
refusal to accept BASIC human justice, made it my job. PROVE ME WRONG!
You have created these
problems and so many more. The fact that your ways disturb social harmony,
& create opportunities for Athieves, depressions, and other simple insanity=s means simply; before you destroy
the world I TOO live in/ WE NEED TO TALK. IF, you don=t start fixing all these problems, when
the DEPRESSION comes, it will be too late! Think not, current levels of
resource depletion CANNOT be supported, the level of actual national debt
CANNOT BE SUPPORTED, the assumption that over-population is controllable is a
LIE, weapons of mass destruction CANNOT save you (they can only destroy), the
genetic code is NOT your TOY therefore soon (the equivalent of foot & mouth
disease & the equivalent reaction) will occur, the entire food chain is
being attacked by genetic alteration (do you really think, mistakes won=t be made/ how will you fix them/
how will you solve the riddle 6 billion questions wrong/ how will the chain
reaction in other living creations survive), Antibiotics are sacrificed for
money in the livestock industry, and on, and on, and on!
ITEM #17
The Electricians ph 217-583-3213 let there be light
2191 CR 2500 E
w
o
r
k
knowledge defines
but wisdom creates
A PROPOSAL TO: Mr. ALIT
SELIMI
REGARDING : THE REMODELING
OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 628 N. Gilbert ,
The following conditions
shall govern this agreement:
Every reasonable effort shall be made to achieve a march 1st opening date, HOWEVER
no guarantee exists; weather, alternate contractors, medical possibilities, etc
establish Abeyond our/my control.
All work as described is
qualified as USUAL & CUSTOMARY and accomplished within the terms; all work
shall be performed in accordance with appropriate local & national
guidelines & codes.
Payments shall be made to
this contractor at approximately $10,000.00, increments, as they are incurred.
More simply, a billing shall be/is determined by material purchase & labor
costs, Justified by physical Realities of work actually accomplished: OR in the
event of material expenses exceeding $10.000.00 within a one week period, a
billing may occur upon reasonable justification, up to the amount necessary for
expenses incurred, IF payment is made directly to the supplier or
sub-contractor.
Work to be done or
sub-contracted, at this contractors expense, SHALL BE:
the installation of
restaurant hoods &
flues (exhaust), including make-up air
gas line for kitchen, but
NOT the equipment quick connects
ceramic work to include
one-side of the pass through window, the mens & womens restrooms, & the
agreed upon floor areas: owner supplies tile & grout.
The repair of plumbing
excavation to a reasonable expectation.
The installation of rug
areas.
All iron work necessary
for dining area.
All carpentry & payments
for wood & wood products as discussed.
The installation of ,
& building of the counter cabinet, covered in formica, and the installation
of stools, BUT does not include the counter top surface.
The installation of all
restroom accessories but NOT the purchase of said Aaccessories@.
The organization of the
project as much as is reasonably possible.
All ceilings as described,
new tile in dining area/ old tile in kitchen.
all painting, staining,
& varnishing.
The repair of damaged
kitchen areas
finishing the new cooler ,
as necessary
EXCEPTIONS &
EXCLUSIONS INCLUDE
Alterations to the roof
surface of the building takes into consideration, the roof is several years old
& consequently problems can occur, primarily due to age. SUCH AS: cuts into
the material could result in tears/ material deterioration can result in poor
adhesion/ winter weather can result in poor adhesion/ heavy equipment must be
carried upon the roof which could create problems.
Reasonable care shall be used
But problems which could occur because of conditions inherent to this work or
requirements (roof problems) due to necessary work realities shall be
considered EXTRA=S.
Work expected or required
beyond the list of work to be done shall be charged at this contractors choice:
either $15.00 per hour plus material costs, OR a rate equal to the sub-contract
cost.
The front doors and rear
door are subject to change, but are not a part of this contract.
The entrance front columns
are to be wrapped in aluminum with simple painted wood crowns.
THE AGREED UPON PRICE IS
$43,200.00
FORTY THREE THOUSAND AND
TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS
TERMS & CONDITIONS to
be met, NECESSARY, to break this agreement are: FAILURE TO PAY upon receipt of
appropriate billing as outlined, within 3 working days.
Should BOTH sides agree We
can no longer work together, due to TRUST issues BECAUSE: should the contractor
fail to keep a reasonable working schedule, (this is determined by consultation
with all contractors involved).
IF this contractor falls
behind creating a problem for the other sub-contractors or owner NOT reasonably
anticipated; alternate contractors may be hired, BUT the cost & the work
shall be limited to either this contractors decision OR sufficient work to
return to an acceptable schedule, ALL work sub-contracted under this heading
shall be charged at Aa COMMON@ time & labor & material
rate for this immediate area.
This contractor SHALL BE
clearly informed and may select the work others shall do AND limit his cost to
an agreed upon amount, defined by the heading REASONABLE & FAIR TO ALL.
I DO ACCEPT THE TERMS,
CONDITIONS, AND JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS AS OUTLINED HEREIN
BY MY SIGNATURE AFFIXED
HERETO.
FOR THE CONTRACTOR JAMES
F. OSTERBUR
FOR THE OWNER Mr. ALIT
SELIMI
DATED________________________
WITNESSED__________________________________________________
contract is 3 pages
Jim & Derek &
Persons with respect
ITEM #18
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
plaintiff
2191 CR 2500 E
versus
Alit Selimi defendant
Primary business location
is
Witness= to be added are the Ex-partner, as
described, in the restaurant located at 628 N. Gilbert,
And the restaurant
equipment supplier for the company Fox River Foods.
This lawsuit establishes a
contractual dispute, that escalated into something more. This lawsuit begins in
the definition of FRAUD. The testimony herein asserts, the continual assurances
and promises from Mr. Selimi to Mr. Osterbur in the time preceding the work and
the agreement/ the promises after the agreement was reached/ the broken
contractual agreements during the work/ the setup and subsequent dismissal of
agreements taken in faith does constitute a breach of contract and a violation
of law/ and the consequent probability of a serious threat, delivered by
another, the description of a criminal behavior. Added to this is the reality
of a failure to report Moines to the internal revenue service, and the
questionable behavior presented gives pause to the question where did the
restaurant hoods come from.
The contractual agreement
specifically states a charge shall exist from any and all work above and beyond
the contractual agreement, and the primary focus of this lawsuit will be
considered to be in recovering this money.
On many occasions prior to
agreeing to do this work, the remodeling of the restaurant, eventually called
village garden restaurant, located in Danville IL, on Gilbert street. Mr.
Selimi made continual promises to me Atake the job, I want you to make money here@. Mr. Selimi was told in no
uncertain terms, that I, Mr. Osterbur did not care for the job HOWEVER my
nephew was in trouble and needed assistance; I finally agreed to take the job
for that reason. It is of note that all Mr. Selimi promises were made when no
one else was around. It was my expectation created by the words and actions of
Mr. Selimi that a fair & honest working environment would be possible, and
consequently the work began. As the work progressed it quickly became apparent
Mr. Selimi did not understand his contract (although he employed numerous
lawyers) and the need to establish an understanding was required. I initiated
the meeting as soon as possible (that time occurred when the restaurant hoods
were up, because the contract heavily leaned in Mr. Selimi favor). Mr. Selimi
and his partner in Urbana gardens restaurant Isen, were both there and I told
Mr. Selimi the contract amount was insufficient to cover the costs of doing
this restaurant (IF he did not understand the contract from the beginning then
there was no specific need at this moment to become legally entwined) instead I
preferred to ask what are you willing to do about this? Mr. Selimi stated, and
Isen agreed: Athe price of doing the restaurant,
has exceeded 30% more, than our highest predicted price!@ Therefore MR. SELIMI stated AHE, would do his very best for me
(in payment for an excellent job) BUT I would have to wait a little while for
the restaurant to open and give him a chance to recover some money@! I accepted this as tolerable,
because I did not personally explain the contract BECAUSE Mr. Selimi had
lawyers in both
It is the reality of Mr.
Selimi promises and HIS description of economic woes (which were substantiated
by ISEN) that were depended upon by Mr. Osterbur to leave that meeting and go
back to work without a clear & certain agreement of exactly what would be
paid and when it would be paid. I do understand that cost overruns do occur,
WHEN owners WILL NOT select everything, PRIOR to beginning the work OR
preferably BEFORE they enter into agreements which they cannot escape. Mr.
Selimi inquired only a little regarding the work before he accepted the
building/ it was clear at the time Mr. Selimi thought my estimates were much
higher than what he would actually need to spend. I expected to have the
opportunity to solidify all design and price calculations prior to Mr. Selimi
purchase of the building however he chose not to do so. Mr. Selimi merely
charged in with his own expectations.
Returning to the promise Ahe would do his best for me, and
pay as soon as he could@. Mr. Selimi methods began to
change within a week after. Mr. Selimi spending habits also began to change (he
did inquire of my advise on nearly everything. However now Selimi began buying
only the best/ although he had 2 weeks prior told me he was in certain
financial trouble. At this point I am again committed to the task, and to leave
would guarantee a loss. Selimi hired an interior designer to Apick out the paint, for the dining
room, for several thousand dollars/ he hires decorative artists for several
thousand dollars/ and never accepted any advise that less expensive equipment
was used by the majority and found to be acceptable. Selimi attitude toward me
changed a little each week after his promise. Anger & contempt began to
appear and increased as the weeks went by. It was clear something was up, and
it was most likely about the money owed to me. The promise had been made and
accepted, no backing out now.
The clarity of Selimi
attitude, the fact that I had agreed to wait for any money above the amount I
had actually spent for a few weeks or months if necessary after Selimi opened
the restaurant. Made it clear to me the probability of beginning the next job
after this restaurant was fast disappearing. I told my nephew he MIGHT have to
find a different job, as a consequence of Selimi, and as a direct result of the
pressures associated with this (in my opinion) his life was changed. SIMPLY
because the stability and trust, required to begin again was tampered with, by
Selimi. He depended upon me, and Selimi directly affected the necessary tools I
needed to help. THIS IS the greater cause to me, as it is exactly what I
intended to avoid by taking this job. And it is by Selimi actions, that he
became the catalyst for a chain of events that further injured this young man.
Selimi by decision or by the
intent of his actions developed a very distinct change from AI=m broke, please help me@, the day he asked for more time to
pay. To a complete lack of concern for cost of equipment, and an attitude of Anothing is too good for my
restaurant@. This explains the decision to
warn my nephew, his job was in danger. Selimi broke the true intent of my
providing this contract, of which he WAS fully aware, therefore the basis of
the agreement itself. And it is not without suspicion be me, that he did so
willingly & intentionally/ a description based upon realities occurred.
This lawsuit further
develops within the distinct association of power. Once it became clear Selimi
did not understand the contract and there would be subsequent trouble/ the
reality of the agreement was no longer an equal footing existed. It was to late
to get out, the contract and its definitions required me to stay, therefore I
now needed Selimi to realize HE was wrong! Therefore Aextras@ were allowed/ Ababy-sitting Selimi was the method.
A reality of irritation because Mr. Osterbur specifically asked Selimi if there
was ANYTHING he wanted to discuss prior to signing, Selimi held the contract in
his possession for a week at Mr. Osterbur insistence, had lawyers and family
& friends who were restaurant owners, had remodeled a restaurant
previously, He had insisted upon the contract himself, and it was a excellent
deal for Mr. Selimi. Irregardless of all of this, Selimi clearly was going to
be a problem. Given this foundation Selimi brought to the worksite (2) 9 x 5
restaurant hoods in the 3rd week of work out of Chicago he said
(even though we agreed on and had planned for (2) 9 x 4 hoods). They were used
hoods driven to the restaurant in a truck provided by one of the
This lawsuit becomes joined
by the definition of slander. The primary incident occurred while Selimi, I,
& an Equipment supplier were discussing the location & type of
dishwasher ordered, and where it would be located/ Selimi forgot that he had
approved a corner dishwasher and became agitated . I explained exactly why we
discussed moving it, reminded him, he approved this and when it was apparent,
his purpose in this matter was simply to complain AI wasn=t baby-sitting him enough anymore@. I simply walked away. He followed
and in front of many witnesses SLANDERED a man BADLY, for simply asking me a
work related question. Selimi insisted HE was the only person I should be
listening to, paying attention to, Etc. And he spent several minutes berating
& belittling this man, with descriptions demanding this person was NO MORE,
Athan the dirt under Selimi shoes@. I walked away again, the person
slandered sought me out shortly thereafter and with sorrow and humiliation in
his face stated Selimi HAD made him feel bad about himself! I explained Selimi
was merely talking to me & was simply using him for that purpose. Selimi
made it clear in these description and others that he had no regard for life
beyond what served his purpose. A fact that added reality to a threat later
received. To facilitate an understanding of the consequences of accepting any
life is beyond respect means simply: that the foundation of evil is in place,
or more clearly, it is only when a life has no value to you, that excuses are
capable of being born which allow decisions to be made such as Athrow this away, or use and abuse,
or whatever can be thought of because this is garbage to me@. Evil which means, to destroy
without cause/ for no better reason than YOU want to play god, is the seed,
that enters the mind to grow into all manner of consequences that displace
life, and then destroys life because it becomes the evidence to convict you.
Here it is necessary to
add proof to the fact that Selimi had nothing to complain about/ that evidence
is created in part, by the reality : having already beat the competition by
$2,000.00 for the dining room bid work, because Selimi cried for 20 minutes
about how he wasn=t saving any money, I chose to add
the cost of hood installation (estimated at over $29,000.00) and various other
work; BECAUSE at this point having been promised the job, I was not prepared to
keep my nephew working with alternate bids at different jobs. It was now winter
when work is either prepared for or hard to get. A power achieved by Selimi
through promises broken!
This lawsuit DOES
distinguish the reality of INJURY to the plaintiff. The primary incident would
be at the end of the job, as described. The entry to the building was separate
from the contract therefore it did provide a proper opportunity to discuss exactly
what & when a payment would be made to me/ prior to increasing the amount
owed to me. Therefore in a calm and deliberate manner I asked Selimi CLEARLY,
what and when did he intend to pay me? Selimi replied MAYBE a thousand dollars,
maybe two, IF and WHEN he felt like it, and only if I said nothing to anyone
about this intentional theft. Selimi was VERY CLEAR about the money, the time,
and Asay nothing or get nothing@. This needs no other explanation,
it is clear and certain and a complete opposite of every promise made. Selimi
manner, his words, his face ALL indicated, HE WAS ENJOYING , this moment, and
it was clear he would pay nothing. I needed to know : is this just about money
or do you desire to be an enemy? Therefore I allowed one single tear to drop.
At the sight of the tear Selimi titled his face back, clearly intending to
laugh at me. When he saw it was only one tear, he refrained. The tear
represents the fact that I had cause to be sad/ NOT a game or a matter of
acting. Rather I now would encounter a very significant problem of keeping my
nephew working/ Selimi would most likely cost me the next job/ and I had
invested four and a half months of labor, plus $10,000.00, without a single
penny to show for it. Of this Mr. Robert Ellis, as a partner of mine in the gas
line installation lost $2000.00 by forgiving me this amount, although it was
owed, another injury.
This lawsuit includes the
reality of TAX FRAUD by Mr. Selimi, as his accountants sent me a statement at
the years end which did not disclose the more than $3000.00 that was returned
to Selimi by me during the time & material phase.
This lawsuit seeks to
further establish the promise Selimi made to me, By subpoenaing, the man
standing beside Selimi as I left the job site for the last time, described
separately. Selimi states in a clear & distinct voice to me, with my nephew
in the passenger seat, and Selimi partner in this business venture standing at
his side; that he had in his words, QUOTE Apromised me the moon & the stars@. Selimi is required to supply this
witness as he knows where and how to find him. It is further intended, that
this partner, who disappears after accepting the risk of starting a new
business, would leave after only about a month, when the restaurant clearing is
doing a tremendous business. It is reported to me that Selimi did cheat him as
well, and this would clearly support this lawsuit and my claims.
This lawsuit encompasses a
LEGAL RAPE of the escrow account used in association with this contract. The
financial intermediary, according to lawyers visited, indicate the bank would
have returned the $2,000.00 left in the contract, for the purpose of legal
recourse, to Selimi. This money was left in the bank with the full and complete
expectation that the money would be protected, from Selimi, until the legal
matters were resolved. To have taken the money out meant signing a full waiver
of rights & liabilities, and therefore no legal remedy available. The
question to the court and to the law and those who make the law: IS THIS Selimi= money? In NO possible reality can
this be Selimi money/ The work was completed according to my participation in
the contract correctly and on time. Therefore it was EARNED BY ME, inheritable
if I so chose, because I had completed every detail and more required. The
assertion that it was not my money MUST be accompanied by some type of failure
on my part with regard to the contract/ and there could be none; THEREFORE THIS
WAS MINE. If the state allows this, THEN it is THE STATE OF Illinois who is stealing
from me. This is a definition of tyranny, a description whereby people are
deprived of their rights & possessions by those in a position of power, and
a direct denial of the 5th amendment of the constitution. Therefore
an undermining of trust, an act of treason, and a denial of Agood faith@ as it applies to all contractual
obligations, defends the words: If it is not for justice/ then it is an
extortion, created for the purposes of power. The state & the court may
reply, AI apparently had 3 or 4 months to
file before this happened.@ UNFORTUNATELY no one told me, the court / state was a theft so I was
unconcerned. The illusion that Aignorance of the law@ is an excuse, CANNOT be defended because, in all matters of person and
property the court is the measure of last defense! HERE, it is the state that
assumes the role of thief, and the court which allows it! DEFEND YOURSELF. But
remember, justice is NOT so small & cheap, that not even a warning can be
given, before the government sanctions theft, and becomes its facilitator.
This lawsuit applies the
term EXTORTION to the very simple expectation of collecting the money owed to
me. Having prepared a clear & fair account of the primary considerations
involved. I personally presented Selimi his copy, and afterward approached a
couple of legal firms to represent me. Both declined telling me the time for a
simple determination had pasted by a couple of weeks or so, and now only an
actual trial would do. I proceeded to inquire of different immigrants in the area,
which knew Selimi, regarding the money owed, and how they would proceed back in
his original country. None had an interest in intervening for me. However one
man, with connections to Selimi, 2 or 3 weeks after delivery of the preliminary
lawsuit clearly wanted to tell me something/ so I asked him Ahow would this be taken care of
back in his country? The man turned his back to me, and in a very clear voice
and without hesitation stated: A We would never go to court! We would work it out between ourselves! OR
Some men hire other men with guns to end the matter!@ This from a man clearly nervous
and who I knew had talked to Selimi from general conversation in the very
recent past. (the name is withheld until such time as it is completely
necessary to surrender/ for his own safety).
I do strongly suspect
Selimi planted the idea, and because I was clearly prepared to go to court and
Selimi knew it/ because his associates & countrymen were not interested in
me/ this leaves Aa man with a gun@. The question becomes Ato what degree should this be taken
seriously?
The facts are Selimi
discounted life that he didn=t need as Adirt beneath his shoes@. Selimi had prepared and waited
for me in the matter of money as described: enjoying the moment with clear
words and motions to indicate HE had chosen to be an enemy! Selimi considered
even the smallest amount of money as worth more than my needs or my life or my
work, even to the point of A clearly wanting to laugh, if I showed any weakness in this matter at
all.@ Here, the question becomes one of
access/ Does Selimi know anyone or could he find anyone with Aa gun@? The answer is Selimi is an immigrant, who knows
many immigrants. Being an immigrant means, there is no safety net for you/ a
stranger in the land. Therefore all you have is those who are like you (in most
minds)/ This is the foundation of prejudice, that if a choice must be made in
life or death, the one who is like you shall win, the one who is least like you
must then lose. The purpose is survival/ therefore a safety net for all people
is extremely important. This question of access is then, simply does he know of
desperate men who believe society is in effect, Atrying to kill them@, the answer would be yes.
These facts give
credibility to the statement; to be wrong here could be fatal. For this reason
only a decision was made to wait until specific pursuits in my own life were
completed to a reasonable extent. This is particular would be a book I have
spent years working upon. A book I refuse to be interfered with. A book which
is far more important to me than money, to refuse the book and seek money I
regard as a temptation, for the book is written as a witness of my faith in
GOD! Therefore the book must be finished first/ it is completed sufficiently at
this time, (appendix A). Do NOT assume, I Abring my religion@ to work with me/ ask anyone their I did not, this issue is
mute. The lawsuit until this point represented only money NOT realities important
to me beyond the necessary descriptions to keep my nephew working. The
ignorance of money, is the explanation linked to this description: If you were
imprisoned in a golden room with jewels of all kinds surrounding you, are you
not still imprisoned? Life is far more important than any description of money.
Now however the issue becomes one of duty, our relationship within society to
assure that honor and honesty is supported by courage/ When it is not respect
dies, and with it so does society. The reality of extortion is implied
violence. Violence is dependent upon cruelty, & cruelty is the tool of
those devoid of respect.
Respect means, an
appreciation of value and the reality of truth do become intertwined to create
a new life. This new life is then the existence of honor combined with hope,
where honesty explains destiny and decision and journeys.
The foundation of violence
is power; the desire to control not by truth but by jealousy & want
Irregardless of the lives it shall compromise or destroy. Selimi has chosen
power with regard to this matter/ therefore cruelty is left/ cruelty is the
tool of those devoid of respect. The initial participation in cruelty has been
clearly demonstrated by slander/ the only issue left: What does Selimi stand to
lose, to create an influence over his stupidity?
Money and power and
security are Selimi Agods@. He stands to lose money, His expectation of power
is lost in this lawsuit, only his security over what he possesses will concern
him. Selimi knows already what I value, therefore only a true warning will do!
I initially prepared a series of legal possibilities and then went in search of
a lawyer to represent me. Several declined stating the contract did not include
legal fees, so they were not interested. One accepted, but the price was high
and I work too hard, to give away one-third of any money recovered in a simple
case. This lawyer however stated the descriptions of law contained in the
papers Amight cause Selimi stress@ making it possible for him to sue
me over affecting the day to day work of running a restaurant. The purpose of a
LAW is to establish a buffer between 2 or more people by creating punishments
& people who would intervene for justice. This is not nor was it ever a
threat by me/ it is a threat encountered as law, and it is suppose to create
stress in the people who break it (appendix d) is these papers. The power of
law, is its own, and has nothing to do with any individual. I then went to the
courthouse and inquired of the clerks there how long before I must file? The
said at least 2 years.
Here the question becomes
what do I have to lose? The risk is clear, the only thing is a human life/ not
necessarily my own! This question expects that only the insane murder/ only an
extreme desire for power hires a murderer. Therefore MY WARNING TO YOU alit
Selimi is this:
YOUR family shall not be
in any danger from me/ YOU shall never be ambushed by me or someone for me/ AND
YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE!
IF violence & cruelty
are combined to hurt me or anyone I know, when the evidence supports it is YOU!
Then listen VERY CLOSELY : YOU WILL BE JUDGED! I PREDICT, Selimi will no longer
be your name/ instead ALL will say, THERE GOES FEAR!
Power demands that you
will laugh & make light of this SIMPLE TRUTH.
Instead I will tell you my
SOUL has always been protected and fear recognized in whatever was challenged.
Do not think this warning is for you/ IT is for me, so that NO EXCUSE remains/
no conversation is necessary/ AND NO MERCY GRANTED. This is not a challenge/ this
is not a threat/ this is a clear & certain warning, that I am not playing
any games.
TRUTH DEMANDS, that I
support this statement ATHAT GOD DOES PROTECT ME@. Therefore compliance, because of
the severity of the punishment, is created by including a portion of the book
written (the discussion of life, appendix A), at its current level of
completion. This is for your benefit and does exist as a MERCY upon your soul/
OR in the event of failure by you/ be forewarned this warning shall become the
difference between FEAR AND TERROR ! CHOOSE.
Know as well JESUS IS MY
LORD the meaning of this is not Avoices inside@ but the truth, that the EXTREME ENERGY found within is NOT
MINE. Rather it belongs to JESUS HIMSELF. I could not /can not judge anyone not
even if my life depended upon it. RATHER when the love in my soul has
experienced even a tiny trial, a primordial energy (means no mercy exists)
comes to protect it. I do NOT live alone JESUS DOES LIVE WITH ME! I say this
because my soul is protected from earliest memories. The body however doesn=t seem to matter, except it has not
been allowed to die, to date. Here the simple warning: a judgment may be
illustrated as the laws which govern an avalanche. Physical realities explain
the possibilities, but nothing occurs until every condition is met.
The question that applies
specifically to this lawsuit is: HOW did a simple agreement become a conflict
explained by the risk of death or an eternity of terror?
The answer begins as
Selimi desired to prove Ahe knew everything about the
business of restaurants@. At the midpoint of the job,
Selimi had proven this was beyond his abilities/ his pride crushed, Selimi had
to choose: to accept gracefully, the help he needed from a variety of people OR
to fight with everyone as if they were enemies, intent upon his demise. Selimi
choose pride, making everyone an enemy.
Selimi found an investor
to bail him out of financial trouble. This man who accepted the financial risks
of starting this restaurant/ SOLD his interests in the business back to Selimi
within 2 or 3 months of extremely good business, for the same amount he had
invested. Prove it is not so! And EXPLAIN why any man assumes the risk, and
then refuses to stay for a greater profit than he had hoped for? This man is
expected to substantiate my case if not frightened for his life/ THEREFORE
Selimi is to provide his ex-partners name, his address, and any and all
information necessary for finding and subpoenaing this person to be my witness
of Selimi business practice. Let it be clear, if the person is not found
healthy and his family intact/ there could be very limited reasons.
The reference given to the
cost of the original Alawsuit (appendix f)@ exceeding $120,000.00 did at that
time rely upon the probability that this person might sue, as well as the man
who was slandered.
The second factor
influencing this current situation is the allowance of common practice on my
part/ with regard to allowing Selimi any power in any form, power CORRUPTS.
Therefore I was wrong, not because it was inconsistent with reality, rather it
applied the concept of possibilities which became an opportunity, for a short
time.
The third factor explains
that the courtroom is not SIMPLE in its effects upon society. Instead justice
or the lack of justice, ripples throughout society in ways that change our
world. The behavior of a judge, not simply law, is the reality that becomes our
way of life as a society.
Probabilities are high,
Selimi CANNOT read, American language! I find no other excuse for failure to
understand the contract as written/ it is PLAIN AND SIMPLE! If it is not so,
then a plot existed from the very first words, that Selimi used.
Selimi broke the contract
more than once, therefore the breached contract allows a remedy according to law.
The contract allows Selimi to hire another if necessary. The contract therefore
creates a reciprocal / I will hire another to complete the contract as
necessary/ a contract is not completed until the debt is paid. Therefore I hire
myself to do the legal work necessary at a cost of $50.00 per hour/ for an
estimated time of 50 hours, a total of $2500.00. to this date and time. AT
trial the cost per hour rises to $200.00 per hour or portion thereof. NOTED I
COMPLETED MORE than my contractual obligations.
The question of duty in
this case, is defined as: Will not more of this behavior occur, or has it
occurred in the past, if allowed without a cost? The answer is most probably
yes! Therefore it is necessary to prove, the behavior was not profitable, but instead
very stupid. In Selimi, a native of
The final question becomes
what happens if I lose this lawsuit? If it is thrown out for time constraints/
even though I was told soon enough/ Then we will be going to small claims
court, one piece of work at a time until all have been accounted for. If I lost
this lawsuit in court you may be certain it will be appealed. However do to a
debt I forgave many years ago/ The IRS instructed me that this loss was not an
expense for tax purposes, EVEN THOUGH they want a pennies out of every dollar I
take in (nothing is too small to be counted). I insisted upon going to court at
the time, only to be told: Unless I was audited I could not go. I went to the
audit division of the IRS, and demanded to be audited, they REFUSED. Then
talking to the division manager of the IRS in Champaign, IL at that time, Ahe instructed me to lie, and change
the tax papers, be certain to sign it, and then be sure to give it back to him@ He clearly intended to entrap, and
was a certain LIAR . I then searched for the probable outcome of demanding
court in some form, and through several IRS agents learned that tax court is
similar to not paying rent. IF you do not pay the rent, Then you have NO case,
because like rent, you didn=t pay the bill, therefore you have no rights. Whereas if you pay the
tax, you have agreed the tax was owed, and you have NO case. Consequently we
will be making critical pathways to tax court.
There are 3 footnotes:
The list of monetary demands are:
TOTAL $46,700.00
This is the amount necessary to achieve settlement outside of court. Even a single penny less will be considered a matter of additional disrespect, and will not be accepted/ neither will Awaiting for the money@ in any form or for any reason! Your lawyer will be allowed to make the transaction, not you.
Regarding inappropriate behaviors, such as slander, assault, or battery, etc; it is strongly recommended you consult your lawyer prior to such actions because the full extent of the law will be used if such things occur.
Do not suppose this billing is all labor costs; I will need $12,000.00 roughly to break even, before I see one single penny for labor or risk or expertise. While this is not your problem/ Don=t (and this is a warning) go telling people I now want to become Arich@ off you! A trial for libelous and defamation will result. YOU chose this yourself, the possibilities of Abeing nice@ are over.
If you desire court, then the following will be added
1. Pain and suffering involved due to Selimi intervention/ creating the exact opposite of what was agreed upon/ a stable work environment for my nephew, and me, and the resultant problems incurred because of Selimi intent to harm. This is described throughout the papers involved. An additional: $70,000.00
The law relied upon initiates in
Beginning in the nature and requisites section 1:37
Benefit to promisor or detriment to promisee. ABenefit
means the receiving as the exchange for a promise of some performance or
forbearance which the promisor was not previously entitled to receive. That the
promisor desired it for his own advantage and had no previous right to it is
enough to show that it is beneficial.@
Section 5:23 Failure to pay
Section 5: 28 Prevention of performance of other party as breach; A duty is imposed by law upon a party not to interfere at all with the completion of the agreement by the opposite party. It is clear that when performance of an agreement is rendered impossible by the willful acts of one of the contracting parties, the agreement to pay becomes absolute.
Section 5:30 Breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing A covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract, absent express disavowal. A breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a breach of contract. Thus, where contractual discretion is exercised in bad faith, the contract is breached, and it is incumbent on the courts to grant appropriate relief.
Section 5:32 Effect of breach on other party=s duties; a party who materially breaches a contract cannot take advantage of the terms of the contract which benefit him, nor can he recover damages from the other party to the contract.
Section 5:33 Whether a breach is material; The determination of materiality is a complicated question of fact involving inquiry into such matters as whether the breach defeated the bargained-for objective.
Section 5:37 Forfeiture In particular, forfeitures are not favored, and are abhorred, by courts of equity. Whenever a great wrong or injustice results from a forfeiture, courts of equity will properly prevent forfeiture.
Other law as may seem important or necessary shall be added according to the outcome of this final inquiry as to whether YOU Selimi would rather the courts decide.
ITEM #19
Retyped
for electronic transfer space
IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FILED Feb
14, 2001
JAMES F.
OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
ALIT SELIMI
DEFENDANTS
CASE
01-LM-16
MOTION TO
STRIKE OR DISMISS
Now comes
the defendant, alit selimi by his attorney, roy g. wilcox, and moves this court
to strike or dismiss the complaint, pursuant to 2-615 of the code of civil
procedure and for and in support thereof, states as follows:
WHEREFORE,
defendant alit selimi, for the foregoing reasons prays that this court to
strike or dismiss the complaint against this defendant.
By; law
office of
ITEM #20
JAMES
F. OSTERBUR
2191
CR 2500 E.
ST.
JOSEPH IL 61873 DATED
3/24/01
VS CASE
# 01-LM-16
ALIT
SELIMI
MAHOMET
IL
RE:
INITIATING ARGUEMENTS
ITEM #21
TO THE COURT
RE: case no. 01-LM
- 16
Regarding motion
to dismiss OSTERBUR vs. SELIMI
The initial filing
by the plaintiff is in no way insufficient to an accurate definition of the
case/ rather the motion fails to recognize the offering of an opportunity to
stay out of court/ and a clear warning of the direction and intent and
seriousness of the matter if it proceeds to a hearing. These warnings included
evidence of a breech of contract as would be submitted; a significant
initiating cause for the collection of damages; an occurrence illustrating a
possible criminal conduct inquiry; and a warning sufficient by its nature to
correctly describe a punishment in the event of specific harsh or irreversible
actions as have been suggested could be visited upon me or someone I know.
It is due to the
possibility of the threat described that a sworn and usable testimony must be
given prior to entry into any court proceeding to assure Selimi, that no matter
what, the outcome of such an occurrence would be inescapable. Are these words
not usable in court/ Are these words not subject to cross-examination by
written word through the court from Selimi himself or his lawyer/ Therefore
this testimony does constitute a legal examination, and may be considered my
true testimony whether alive or dead.
Definitions which
participate in this testimony which describe Areligious
concerns@ are not subject to questioning within the court/
INSTEAD these warnings exist only to establish the completion of all discussion
and or requirements to forewarn Selimi in case the need arises/ no further
words are necessary!
The question of a
threat is considered minimal, I believe Selimi was just playing another game
(gambling)/ NO conclusive proof exists however, that it is merely Aa stupid game@, therefore it will be treated as a legitimate
threat until proven otherwise. I will remind the court, the threat did not come
from Selimi himself directly to me, but as a warning with undeniable meaning
from another as described. To the court, this person shall not make a good
witness because Afear, panic, and depression@ are all involved, the consequence of being called into court shall be
SIGNIFICANT to this person. Therefore request is made as to the abilities of
the court to limit the severity of fear (WHAT can you provide). There are many
reasons for fear, and I do not present this as simply fear of Selimi, rather
immigrants Astick together or are abandoned, by each other@, I do not know it is not fear of Selimi either. Again the acceptance
of the possibility of a threat exists from the interactions, I experienced as
described in these testimonial papers.
The allowance of
appendix A, the discussion of life/ simply presents the question: Where did
this information come from ( whether you agree or not)? That question supports
the warning, that eternity exists! Therefore as it is with nature reality and
truth DO NOT require your consent (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc, etc). This
warning separates me/ removes my presence from Selimi outcome, as I believe in
eternity, and the requirement to do no harm to anyone if possible.
Appendix B,
represents a warning to Selimi, that I have in the past sufficiently
represented myself, within the court system to the Reality: that 3 federal
court appeals judges HAD to lie and perjure themselves, to stop the process in
doing so they by the responsibility of their positions and oaths did commit a
treasonous act/ because the constitution is nothing less than the evidence that
each person is equal to the whole, not as an individual but as a commitment to
protect and defend/ specific actions which remove the ability to defend
yourself by lies and theft, which remove the promises of the constitution by
the consequence of interfering in the process of justice, and the right of law
are fundamentally an act against the entire United States.
Warning is given
to Selimi: NOTHING that is not brought up in the initiating trial can be
appealed, therefore we will be discussing details. Second only an adequate
audience can insure an adequate trial, therefore an audience will begin to be
prepared. Third nothing which occurs through the court can ever be dismissed or
changed, by you or me! It is presented and it will remain as is. I DO SAY, to
you Selimi, that I am not your prosecutor/ I did nothing to you, these are your
actions/ the fact that I refuse to provide any Apower@ over others to you, by leaving what is clearly mine, as money in your
hands is certainly nothing less than you would do. The consequences of your own
actions, are and were simply described and created ONLY BY YOU!
NOTICE IS GIVEN
If a financial
settlement does not occur prior to 3/ 13/ 01, in the amount described in the
brief. Then as soon as the ex-partner may be found an opportunity shall be
presented to him to join in this lawsuit for financial relief, if the situation
between you was as has been described to me. Further Mr. Dennis Scott, shall be
invited to join, due to the matter of slander, incurred by Mr. Scott, and was
witnessed by many people. Mr. Ellis who was a contractor on the premises and
was clearly unhappy the day payment was made to him shall be asked if he has
anything to add and wishes to join. The current owner of the restaurant Village
Garden of Danville, shall be advised that a trial of this type may have a
financial repercussion upon his business and therefore should consider measures
both legal & financial, to protect his business/ should business drop.
NOTED: It would be
my expectation to limit the amount of relief requested in a joint trial to the
actual amount over and above input costs which the business generated for
Selimi/ including any amount for labor and profit by Selimi! Selimi told me, I
must work 4 and a half months for free and accept the problems this created for
me, and accept a loss of $12,000.00 dollars/ CONSEQUENTLY he participated in
the actual business for approximately 6 months or so of time, and I now tell
him the same. The money he collected came only through the betrayal of others,
therefore it is fair.
Beyond 3/13/ 01 I
will accept $80,000.00 and no less, prior to trial/ and until such time as
others have joined, at that moment only the jury shall decide.
The court is asked
to consider the failure of Selimi to present the name and all other pertinent
information necessary to locate his ex-partner, in court on the 13th
of march as contempt of this process. This is my second legal request (he put
it in the mail is not acceptable).
This pleading will
be provided to Isen, I am told not only a partner in the
To the gambler
Selimi, DO consider well your position in this matter; If your pride is worth
more than the possibility of the matters CLEARLY in evidence within all the
pleadings, then by all means go ahead. But remember this: YOU CAN LOSE, and the
repercussions are far more serious than you suspect; QUESTION YOUR LAWYER, and
understand the possibilities, FIRST!
Law means: having
entered the courtroom, someone else (a judge or jury) will be deciding and
choosing what society wants to do with you.
According to the
request of Selimi lawyer to strengthen this case in his motion for dismissal:
The purpose has
been discussed and the pleadings are to become
2 The question of power is evident/ power means the contract was breached not only financially but by the evidence of fraud! A contract written which clearly and deliberately identifies the contractor Osterbur/ had provided with intent every necessary legal action to the owner Selimi to provide a resolution of any dispute to favor Selimi; thereby making even the concept of a problem with regard to the business of the remodeling a simple question of do you want me to continue? The fact that Selimi did not use this legal maneuver, but chose deception, trickery, and harm instead substantially proves: the contract was entered by Selimi under false pretenses. Otherwise if a problem in the work presented, the resolution of that problem gave Selimi more than adequate means for a legal relief. The price of fraud shall be $10,000.00.
Reliance begins
within IL commercial law 461 contracts / 285 contracts/ performance or breach
1:41 / 1:39 / & 5:33 as it governs the contract, the intent of the
contract, and the purpose of the contract. Reliance in law as it regards
negligence will be presented at a later time, prior to court.
The definition of a property is properly & correctly identified, as a fact developed within the HONEST belief in GOD ! The body is my possession/ my property upon this earth, but NOT my life. Therefore the development of theft, as a consequence of a deliberate decision, and a distinct action, when coupled to the reality of a deliberate, willful, planned & executed attack by Selimi upon me, at the end of the work: Produces an additional definition of violent intent ( the desire and subsequent action, to harm). Demonstrates the consequence of harm; to this body, was definable to specific decisions which Selimi made.
Arrogance is AI am better than these/ I am MORE important than these/ I am a Agod@ in my own mind@. Therefore arrogance is a SLANDER to all humanity/ and a deliberate enslavement of lives. To achieve arrogance, people MUST be made to lose, otherwise pride won=t allow it. Truth assembles the evidence/ and then demands a decision, there are only 3 reactions left.
To be humbled: means to accept you are only equal, accept the responsibility, and quit being stupid.
To search for a means of control, which in a trial, such as is indicated in these writing, will mean the question shall arise: How can AI@ make the plaintiff stop? Let us review: Every reasonable opportunity was offered to settle this matter/ Every possible warning was made/ The words are CLEAR, the plaintiff is not going away! Therefore the only avenue of influence, is violence against family or friend, or to buy influence in the court (lawyers & so on) a very expensive option. This is said because WE BOTH KNOW all these things are TRUE. Therefore in this scenario the probability goes to family or friend/ the penalties are VERY CLEAR! To insure NO misunderstandings exist: I DO BELIEVE in eternity, therefore to die, as a piece of property, is a small matter to me. Understanding this, I DO ALSO BELIEVE whosoever dies or is harmed simply because they knew me, SHALL ENTER HEAVEN, without a single doubt. This reality is a deliberate decision, the consequence is not limited to me/ therefore others as may be in harms way are warned/ the decision to endanger another=s life is not without consequence, no matter how small the risk. A small amount of fear has already surfaced, because these people KNOW I will not turn away. FOR DAMAGING the relationships which are important to me, the price is $100,000.00
Which leaves only the final possibility: to attempt the destruction of this body. The end result is up to GOD as I honestly don=t care, eternity comes for us all! This outline exists for society to INVADE YOUR LIFE, should this body die/ YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTHING, because either criminally or by taking away every penny you shall ever have, your hopes, your everything dies too.
MORE IMPORTANT is this final warning: HELL begins in the descriptions of the bible, a fire will replace, Athe breath of life@. Then an INVASION of every curse ever made against you. Then a final decision: WAR or surrender? According to your final choice, it shall be done to you! It is irrelevant if you believe the warning/ what is true, determines the reality!
Death demands EVERYTHING, therefore it means you LIVE, or you will be destroyed. Hell decides how slowly, and war or surrender determines the intensity.
The question arises: If the body is only a property (a house so to speak), then death should be simple and of no great consequence! Why is death so harsh? While pain & punishment & the desire to say Agoodbye@ cannot be ignored. The answer begins in the truth, that love joins each life with all who experience this love. Because the soul (life) must leave when the body dies/ those who loved also lose a portion of their own love/ it is taken from them, they do not give it. Therefore anyone who does deliberately plan & execute intentional harm/ Does do harm to all who DO love that person. Those who willfully enslave by financial means or other/ DO also enslave all who do love that person. Those who fail to respect every human, every life/ Do also seek the destruction of all who choose love; Because respect means to HONOR life as worthy of its existence. Failure means to dispose of the Arefuse@ / (to decide others are nothing more than worthless. These things are NOT Ahard concepts! Remember them because to be destroyed means: to be examined in minute detail, one small piece at a time. A gambler says: Ahe/ she lives by their wits & instinct@ FIND YOURS! OR I predict the courtroom will be a very unpleasant experience and a lesson you will not forget.
As before, this warning is a mercy to you/ FOR ME, because every opportunity, every warning, and all necessary information has been provided to you. The reality of my involvement in any destiny you experience is absolved. YOU will choose, I merely explain, so that NO method of attack can be or ever will be found. This is NOT A TEST of wills or strength, this is a legal consequence of your actions! The result will be, a reality of the purpose of law to distinguish problems among people in society, and then substantially cause those problems and the persons which create them to stop! Either by a change in behavior/ removing the possibility of another occurrence/ or removing the person from society itself for a reasonable length of time. The purpose of justice is to realize we are not perfect, and everyone does get a little stupid sometimes.
Such is the nature and intent of this litigation, and it is up to Selimi whether he wishes to gamble with the outcome of a trial.
In the circuit court 5th judicial
circuit of
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
plaintiff
vs. Case no. 01- LM - 16
Alit Selimi
defendant
MOTION IS MADE
I, James F. Osterbur do formally request the subpoena of the following evidence from Mr. Selimi
The financial statement specifically relating to
the Village Garden Restaurant in
The purpose is two-fold: the financial records sent
to me by his accountant firm in
The reality of the financial statement with regard to Selimi ex-partner will CLEARLY describe the actual relationship between Selimi and that partner, by describing what money did or did not change hands and when. If it indicates a relationship as was reported to me, then it supports the entirety of my case, as a specific witness of undeniable proof.
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191 cr 2500 E.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing pleadings and motion was served upon the above-names person by enclosing same in an envelope addressed to (one letter each):
to Alit Selimi
to Roy G. Wilcox attorney for the defendant 612 N.
logan
to The circuit court of the fifth judicial circuit vermilion county office of the clerk room 1A
7 north Vermilion Danville IL
and placing same in the
I do so certify ________________________________
dated __________________________
ITEM #22
(Copied from
handwritten)
APPENDIX E
TO ALIT SELIMI
FROM JAMES F.
OSTERBUR
A review is made
necessary due to the failure of Mr. Selimi to keep his word. It is noted for
court purposes mr. selimi clearly and deliberately stated to me on several occasions
(BEFORE I signed) the proposal in question: His words were; AI want you to make money here, at this job@! Noted he was quite firm and did his best to convince me he meant what
he said. I regard this as an oral/ verbal contract/ and mr selimi verified it
was true in front of his partner Isen, & me, while we discussed the problem
of a contract amount which failed to meet expenditures. This was during the
last week of February / this is the last week of march. At that meeting mr
selimi said He WOULD do his very best to see I got paid for all expenses and
MORE.
Mr. selimi and I
talked again this date of march 30 (the work being over). Mr selimi now states
maybe he will pay a little of the expenditure in time if he chooses to do so.
BUT, if I don=t accept this new offer He will refuse to pay
anything. Reality is mr selimi is in money trouble and clearly I am to be
abandoned. For clarity the money in question is strictly out of pocket expense,
as I have NOT made one single dime in labor or other, for myself in over 4
months of work. I have said to selimi AI don=t@ care about the work just pay the expenses, and we
will be Afriends@. Mr selimi choose instead to BREAK his promise that
I would make money here/ to BREAK his promise in front of Isen and me, to do
his BEST and pay not only the expenses but also a reasonable wage for the job
done. It is my testimony without selimi=s verbal guarantee that I would make money at this
job/ the proposal in question would NOT have been entered into. Of interest I bid
(a portion of this job) with 2 other contractors each bidding on the same and I
was $2000 under one & even with the other. Mr. selimi complained for
fifteen minutes about he=s not saving any money and because immediately
before reviewing the bids selimi got 6 inches from my face when he told me for
a 3rd time, I WANT YOU to make money here.
Believing him to
be honest I accepted his GUARANTEE and simply threw in the rest of the work,
believing a FAIR agreement could be reached at the end of the job. I can be
understood: if the owner wants you to make money, you will! This is the basis
of our oral agreement: the owner says you WILL make money/ and I accept this as
a contractual guarantee! The question is then WHY did selimi make this
statement? The answer can only go, Aone way or the other@; either it
was a guarantee or it was an attempt to gain a trust for dishonest purposes.
A review of the
work preceding this proposal in question: Several nights & weeks drafting a
kitchen & dining layout at selimi request; demolition of areas within the
building; removal of concrete for plumbing work; painting the outside of the
building; & pouring a concrete footing for a new cooler, which included
cutting a hole through the wall for an access door. selim changed his mind and
part of the first footing had to be removed and a different footing poured
instead. (noted at no time was I involved in this decision/ it simply became my
problem). During this time as many as 5 different people were employed by me,
with very limited experience HOWEVER each was adequate and worked hard. During
this time selimi appeared frequently and demanded my time and often expected me
to accompany him off the job site. These men DID need my supervision and the
consequence was LESS by far was accomplished, without my presence. The charge
for this amount of work was $17000 dollars which alit payed and then requested
money back/ I paid $3000, back even though HE was directly responsible. To this
selimi would say, IF they had been professionals they would have been able to
work without me. A LOT of plain hard work was done and a construction reality
IS: the contractor is hired to do a specific work, he is NOT obligated to plan,
draft, consult, or otherwise ; that is the architects job/ for which he charges.
It is true I allowed weeks throughout the construction and demolition period to
be literally consumed by selimi in discussing his plans, his trouble with his
architect, his need for a consultant, because a lot of effort was spent for him
to get here, & I felt he should be granted some of that time, the rest he
simply took.
Reviewing the
contract:
Be it known, I
have finished my work, before all other contractors. During the contractual
period selimi had 2 jobs; to take care of the money & to pay within 3 days
of notification of a payment demand in the amount given. Selimi DID NOT do his
job in either matter. The first problem occurred during the 2nd week
in February. Selimi was clearly & deliberately told a payment of $10000 was
due and he failed to pay within a weeks period. The next time a $10,000 payment
selimi again paid after the deadline and an amount one-half of the billed
amount. He then said, Athe banker won=t let me give you any more than this@. I called the banker Mr. Dillion and inquired, he said, ANOT ME, it was selimi who refused to authorize.@ This is now the 3rd time the contract was broken, and a
letter was given to clarify how the money was used. Noted: under terms and
conditions of this proposal Afailure to pay or failure to pay within 3 days,
results in the contract ending! NO contract exists beyond this time. Selimi HAS
read the contract & employs an attorney. Every billing except for the very
last $2000 bill for extra=s was handled in exactly the same way. Irregardless
of the contract being broken, I continued to work STILL believing selimi would
honor his promise.
Regarding the
contract and its description of work selimi CLEARLY wants an exact
interpretation of my obligations as outlined: AS IT READS:
the installation
of the restaurant hoods and flues; THIS WAS DONE. (Noted installation does NOT
include or assume the purchase of parts. This includes flues & all piping
materials as well as assembly of the materials into usable parts are NOT my
responsibility. Installation of gas quick connects is extra. The steel for the
support grid is extra and so on.
With regard to
ceramic work Aowner supplied tile and grout for kitchen &
cooler.
Repair of plumbing
excavation does NOT include changes, or failure to read instructions &
properly place components.
The installation
of rug DOES NOT include glues or trowels or planing or repairing the floor or
the equipment rental necessary.
Iron work does NOT
include the bus cart located in front of the smoking section as this was never
in the plan/ holes were cut in the concrete, steel components made, & then
selimi changed his mind.
Carpentry beyond
the date the $5000 dollar was deposited, falls behind the contract , because
selimi broke the contract. Therefore ANY work, paid for or done by me is
subject to a DIRECT CHALLENGE/ and a question exists as to material costs.
The concept that
restroom stalls Ais an accessory@ is mute as code demands them therefore whatever
code demand cannot be an accessory.
Problems with the
plumber created NUMEROUS time & cost overruns for me. Selimi hired the
plumber WOULD NOT let me fire him at an early stage, and become directly
responsible for his actions and their consequences.
The installation
of, as clearly begins the description of the work DOES NOT include purchase of
ceiling tile or grid or paint. IF that was meant or agreed to the wording would
be the same as : Aall carpentry & payments.....@.
Area=s painted by others were at selimi discretion and are NOT subject to an
adjustment.
The repair of
damaged kitchen areas DOES NOT include the building of walls or offices or
shelves or the materials used to construct them.
Work done to the
new cooler including footings & floor set upon the old Aparking lot@ were NOT/ are not guaranteed, therefore ANY problem
that occurs is not mine. Selimi insisted the blacktop surface was not to be
excavated nor footings dug, therefore it is his own problem, should any occur.
In addition NO
allowance was made to fix the roof or seal the flue or add a flue for the new
water heater, and are assumed extra
Likewise the inner
entrance doors were removed, stored, and walls, flooring, & ceiling
replaced/ these are extra=s.
Again the constant
changes by selimi ARE NOT part of this contract & consequently owed.
Begin with your
banker & lawyer and then: you have ONE opportunity to quote me a fair
price! As you have said to me, I will REPEAT TO YOU: Your money problems are
yours NOT MINE
James F. Osterbur
Beyond the
influence of the contract EXTRA work is / has been determined. Be aware
Unloading, setup, nor providing labor or equipment in ANY way is covered/
therefore it is an extra and will be charged!
BE ADVISED, AI am no longer, interested in breaking even@. Failure to be fair, as it applies to 4 and one half months of work ;
6 days a week @ 8-10 hours or more per day including 3 weeks of constant 12-14
hour days @ 7 days a week DO APPLY.
You have until
Tuesday April 6 to complete this contract or to court we go/ wherein a fine of
$1000 dollars will be added; interest in the amount you bank charges plus
associated penalties and to work as a lawyer means to charge as a lawyer!
ITEM #23
JAMES
F. OSTERBUR
plaintiff.
2191
cr 2500
Vs
ALIT
SELIMI
defendant.
LIST
OF PEOPLE EXPECTED TO BE SUPEONAED
ISEN
BALAZI mahomet, IL
ROBERT
ELLIS Westville IL
DENNIS
SCOTT Danville IL
Mr.
Selimis= now ex-partner (the name and
address will be provided or WILL BE subpoenaed)
RODNEY
BINGHAM,
REDIZ
IMERI,
ROBERT
DILLION loan officer for CIB bank
EXHIBITS
REMODELING
CONTRACT
LETTER
TO MR. SELIMI
A
BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
Contracts
are like a marriage, contract stands for a written declaration of Awhat I/we will do@! Current definitions, do create a description
as follows; its easy to do at the beginning / like marriage it is expensive to
get out! Like marriage, a number of verbal, perhaps emotional, and certainly
intentional statements & actions ARE always made at the beginning: these
are relied upon by both parties, as a means of Atesting@ how Aliving and working together@ will turn out. As in marriage
there are always a few surprises BUT IF each participant understands A CONTRACT
is about work, and IF BOTH participants are willing to make a Agood will effort,@ at a peaceful relationship, no
real problem need arise. Failure to do this means someone else decides.
AMENDED
12/8/99 as follows:
My
final written testimony in this matter; redevelops the situation established on
the day partial bids were looked at. Having searched my memory for what lacks
from the words already in print, is this: Mr. Bob Ellis, a partner of mine in
this bidding, heard me say AI=ll go home and throw in, or more
correctly pick and choose from all the work, & come back with a different
bid in a couple of days (NOT an exact quote, RATHER it is exactly what I meant)@! FOR ABSOLUTE CLARITY, this was
and remained a partial bid, and I already had won the bidding! To show Mr.
Selimi He was indeed saving money, at his insistence, I intended to rearrange
the bid to more specialized (expensive) work so there could be NO doubt/ NEVER
to do this work for free/ Mr. Selimi was told in an earlier conversation in his
urbana restaurant I DON=T work for free, he responded by
saying I DON=T work for free either. Mr. Selimi
would have received a detailed description of what I meant at that time
However, Mr. Ellis became alarmed at the words, and as he was NOT consulted
prior to this statement HE deserved an immediate answer! (MR. Ellis is in no way
responsible, for these problems). I told him AI would protect his money and that he should not
need to worry; this because Mr. Selimi had again GUARANTEED ME IN NO UNCERTAIN
TERMS, that I would make money here, at this job. I also told Mr. Ellis that I
needed this job for my nephew who had just come out of drug rehab where approx.
$ 30,000.00 had been spent on his behalf, and even if I did this job for free,
it would still be worth it to help him get his life back together! At this
point I finished talking to Mr. Selimi with the words, A I=ll come back with a different bid in a couple of
days@. The conversation with Mr. Ellis
occurred roughly within 15 ft, in front of Mr. Selimi, and as indicated: left me
NO real bargaining position, having stated plainly MY NEPHEW was far more
important than the money! Therefore because Mr. Selimi, although NOT invited to
listen/ certainly would have heard this conversation, and further attempts to
achieve an equal business footing in such a negotiation had evaporated.
Therefore no further efforts were made to clarify, preferring instead to rely
entirely upon the written document (our contract). Mr. Selimi had NO QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS.
I
wrote down my best offer, intending to avoid further problems. Mr. Selimi
accepted the contract as written: I asked him directly AARE YOU SURE, you want to sign this
contract, as is ?@ Mr. Selimi nodded YES, we signed.
NO other negotiations existed, UNTIL the conversation between Isen , myself,
& Mr. Selimi, as reported herein.
Argument
will be made, as to the wording which exists in the handwritten document (to
Alit Selimi RE contractual agreements). This document prepared in haste the
evening of Mr. Selimis= CLEAR AND DELIBERATE INTENT to
abandon all promises/ debts made. As to this document the words appearing on
the 4th page (It IS MY testimony, without Mr. Selimis= verbal guarantee that I WOULD make
money at this job/ the proposal [contract]in question would NOT have been
entered into.) governs and declares and explains the REALITY depended upon by
ME with regard to participating in this contract and the subsequent work. AS
CLEARLY DESCRIBED throughout all corresponding documents THAT PROMISE each of
them, came before ANY other negotiation or work existed.
Amended
portion ends / addition of law begins
PLAINTIFF
TESTIMONY
Commercial law
Every contract contains an implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing between parties to it, absent express disavowal.
Similarly stated , an obligation of good faith and fair dealing is implied in
every contract governed by
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing
limits the exercise of discretion vested in either of the parties. 88. It
requires that contractual discretion be exercised reasonably, not arbitrarily,
capriciously or in a manner inconsistent with the parties= reasonable expectations
89. YY.
Personal injury and torts fraud Illinois JUR 13:28
Fraudulent concealment of cause of action The concealment contemplated by this
statute must consist of affirmative acts or representations that are calculated
to, and in fact do, prevent the discovery of the cause of actionY.. 13:29 Generally, the proper
measure of damages in a fraud action is the loss to the plaintiff and not the
gain of the defendantYY
Illinois Jurisprudence: criminal law 70:01 YYtheft is also committed
when a person obtains control over property that is either known to be stolen
or which under the circumstances should reasonably have been believed to be
stolen and :Y..intends
to deprive the owner (me) permanently (intends never to pay) of the use or
benefit of the property (my life, by the piracy of my work)
Illinois Jurisprudence: criminal law 70:06 Theft
of labor or services or use of property a person commits theft when, by means
of threat, deception, or knowingly without consent, he or she obtains the
temporary use of the property, labor or services of another which are available
only for hire
Commercial law performance or breach
Used with the intent to support and inform Isen
and any other associate of Mr. Selimi that it is not wise to choose nationalism
over truth/ there are consequences.
I do expect Isen to tell the truth in every way
However I do understand the realities involved.
Personal injury and torts conspiracy Ill JUR 9:6
Y.a conspiracy
claim may be supported by factual allegations from which the existence of an
agreement can be inferred.30 However the agreement need not be written, but may
be an oral undertaking or a scheme evident by acts of the parties 21YY
Commercial law performance or breach 5:44
generally; prerequisites to enforceability An action based upon a written
contract must be upon the writingY.the
essential terms of a contract must be definite and certain in order for a
contract to be enforceable78. However, a contract is sufficiently definite and
certain to be enforceable if the court is enabled from the terms and provisions
thereof, under proper rules of construction and applicable principles of
equity, to ascertain what the parties have agreed to do 79.
Commercial law performance or breach ILL JUR
5:32 effect of breach on other party=s
duties where a performing party breaks his side of a contract and the breach is
material, the contract is then unenforceable, the breach having excused the
other party 83. Thus simply state, if one party commits a material breach of a
contract, the other party can walk away from the contract without liability 84.
And a party who materially breaches a contract cannot take advantage of the
terms of the contract which benefit him, nor can he recover damages from the
other partyY.
Commercial law performance or breach 5:23
Failure to pay The breach of a duty to pay under a contract is an instantaneous
occurrence that coincides with the moment at which the duty arises and cannot
be viewed as continuing 48. Once a duty arises, but to say that a duty
continues until performed would render nugatory the applicable statute of
limitationsYY
Commercial law performance or breach Ill JUR
5:41 acts constituting anticipatory breach Before a renunciation can be treated
as an anticipatory breach, there must be a positive and unequivocal
manifestation of intention that the party will not render the promised
performance when the time fixed in the contract arrives.40. Such manifestation
may be in the form of a definite statement that performance will not be
forthcoming or a voluntary affirmative act which renders the obligator unable
or apparently unable to perform. Unless justified, a promisor=s definite statement to a
promisee that the promisor will not perform its contractual duties constitutes
an anticipatory repudiation of the contract.42.
Ill Jurisprudence: criminal law 70:03 prima
facie evidence; theft by lessee When a lessee of another=s personal property fails
to return it to its owner within 30 days of the owners written demand, that
failure constitutes prima facie evidence that the lessee knowingly obtained or
exerted unauthorized control over the property of the owner, in satisfaction of
the statutory language defining the offense of theft (Mr. Selimi accepted the
use of my money, which constitutes no real difference from any other tool,
[offered only because he cried I=m
in financial trouble] and being clearly told I want it back at the end of the
job)
70:04 prima facie evidence; intent It is prima
facie evidence of intent to knowingly obtain control over property of the owner
by deception1YY.
Commercial law performance or breach Ill JUR
5:50 Negligence or lack thereof; comparative fault The concept of fault is one
of the major distinctions between contract law and tort law.
Personal injury and torts Ill JUR infliction of
emotional distress 6:27 YThe
primary response is an immediate, automatic, and instinctive response designed
to protect the individual from harm. It is exemplified by emotional responses
such as fear, anger, grief, and shock, and is generally short in duration and
subjective in natureY.
Commercial law performance or breach Ill JUR
5:28 Prevention of performance of other party as breach A duty is imposed by
law upon a party NOT TO INTERFERE at all with the completion of the agreement
by the opposite party. It is clear that when performance of an agreement is
rendered impossible by the willful acts of one of the contracting parties, the
agreement to pay becomes absolute69.
Where a landowner has either actively created or
passively permitted to continue a condition over which he has control, which
renders performance of the contract more difficult or expensive, he has
breached an implied contractual duty for which he must respond in damages.
Personal injury and torts Ill JUR defamation
11:69 elements of damages Y..personal
humiliation and mental distress and suffering are part of the actual harm for
which recovery may constitutionally be allowed for merely negligent defamationY..
AFederal
law 8& 1227 page 22 Aliens and Nationality ch 12 report on criminal aliens
section 510 of pub. L. as amended Dec 12 1991, 105 stat. 1751, A(a) In general the attorney
generalY.describes
the efforts of the Immigration and Naturalization service to identify,
apprehend, detain, and REMOVE from the United States aliens who have been
convicted of crimes in the United States.
Commercial law performance or breach IL JUR 5:42
effect of anticipatory repudiation Where one party repudiates a contract and
refuses any longer to be bound by it, the injured party must elect his remediesYY.he may attempt to keep
the contract in force by awaiting the time for the promisors performance and
then bringing suitY..
Personal injury and torts defamation 11:69
elements of damages Impairment of ones=
reputation is the essential element and basis for an award of compensatory
damagesY {BE IT
KNOWN that this part of the suit is rescinded at Mr. Imeri request, Mr. Selimi
is reprieved from further damages regarding this specific matter.}
TO BE CLEAR, My nephew IS a strong young man whose life changed from kindness & love can fix anything to Aeven people I love & who love me ARE attacking me@. It takes time to adjust. And a steady, patient, & secure environment to accept this type of change. Mr. Selimis= greed subjected both of us to unwarranted stress.
CONCLUSIONARY STATEMENT
Mr. Selimi will say Ahe/I was not organized/ he/I could have hired a foreman or more skilled labor.
I say: Constant interruptions, the irritation of Amoney/owner problems@ and my ABSOLUTE right to be foreman NOT, A baby-sitter@. Establish this argument in may favor.
As to the consequences of trial: Mr. Selimi is advised in advance, the cost of this contract dispute could exceed $120,000.00 dependent upon the descriptions of slander and libelous actions, and that outcome.
The JUDGE will decide if this evidence goes to the states= attorney for criminal investigation.
Your EX-partner, or Mr. Scott, could use these words against you.
CONSULT YOUR LAWYER/ you have 10 days from the date on this testimony to make me an offer I will accept.
IF the check IS CASHED BY ME! THEN I have accepted, and the lawsuit ends, and I will NOT file.
IF the amount is UNACCEPTABLE BY ME! THEN it will be held as evidence NOT CASHED/ Not given back. NO NEGOTIATION SHALL EXIST/ NO QUESTION REGARDING THE AMOUNT ANSWERED SIMPLY YES OR NO!
IF court: then court, the law, and a lawyer & lawyer fees shall be added, Plus time spent in court assessed and charged.
To Mr. Selimi: years ago, a similar situation involving a small amount of money occurred to me, I let him go, because to pursue him meant he could/would FAIL / for an eternity. AHell@ is not vengeance from god, Rather those people who TRULY CURSED; the person who took away their eternity by making this life unbearable, were heard!
YOU, have enough LOVE inside to survive this test: CHOOSE LOVE and be happy OR receive this warning:
To Mr. Selimi directly, because the reality is so very harsh, this warning is given to you:
HELL, is the destiny of all who choose, Aanything beyond or before life (includes more than your own)@ Those who choose hatred, greed, lust, power and more over life in all its forms, DO destroy themselves. They do so by sinking ever FARTHER, away from life, and more & more each one becomes simple self. Here YOU become FOREVER ALONE and because there is NO place else to go, YOU (IF YOU FAIL) MUST descend into the depths of your own soul. Here all are subjected to Athe treasures (manipulation & power) of yourself@ ONLY that which is you, is the intruder, as you were alive & now/then you are dead. Death means : WITHOUT power, energy, confined by fear; SURROUNDED by every imagination described by death!
Into this (if you fail) YOUR RULER comes. Simply FEAR MULTIPLIED!
Many propose Awe are dirt & simply return to the dirt@ If this were true, THEN answer this: how can Adirt@ be alive? RATHER BELIEVE THIS we as life are energy, and energy never dies it is merely transformed.
This IS SAID; FOR YOUR BENEFIT, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON.
ITEM #24
ALIT SELIMI
VS
JAMES
F. OSTERBUR
RE
CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE
BRIEF:
8. With regard to all written testimony; the statement exists : YOU CAN NOT pick and choose either all must be accepted as written or none! Therefore to accept any concept of a promise made by Mr. Osterbur MUST MEAN/ to ACCEPT the testimony of promises made by Mr. Selimi!
ITEM #25
RETYPED
for electronic transfer space
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT
FOR
THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
JAMES
F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
ALIT
SELIMI
DEFENDANT
NOTICE
OF HEARING
TO:
Mr. James Osterbur
2191
cr 2500 E.
YOU
ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that on the 13th day of March, 2001 at 3:30 PM,
Or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, before the honorable judge
joseph p. skowronski, or any judge sitting in his place, room 1B, Vermilion
county courthouse, 7 North Vermilion street, Danville, IL, Plaintiff will call
for hearing on Motion to Strike or Dismiss, AT WHICH TIME YOU MAY BE PRESENT
AND HEARD IF YOU DESIRE.
Alit
Selimi, defendant
By
Roy G. Wilcox
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
The
undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was served upon the
above-named persons by enclosing same in an envelope so addressed, with first
class postage fully prepaid, and by depositing said envelopes in a
\ signed Roy G. Wilcox
Roy
G. Wilcox
Law
office of Roy G. wilcox
Attorney
for Plaintiff
612
N.
IL
regist. No. 3128406
FROM
ME: this is the only correspondence sent/ NOTHING FROM THE COURT!
ITEM #26
TO THE PRESS
(local)
from James F.
Osterbur
RE: this Judicial
Review
Questions will be
answered only by Awriting to me@, I will return in writing. The reason, people hear or
read only what they want or expect to/ with writing at least a second
opportunity can occur. Of simple questions expected:
The first
question: WHY did I attack this judge so harshly?
The answer: truth
says it is not the judge, BUT the lack of justice that was attacked/ secondary
to this is the question which MUST be asked of the court: DEFINE JUSTICE?
A LEGAL system
locked in rules, regulation, & words DOES NOT accept justice as their
primary purpose/ therefore this judicial review has arisen.
Justice means: to
fundamentally accept the flaws inherent in human reality and USE THESE to
determine an opportunity to improve all lives, by changing one life. This is a
judicial description, rather than a human description of justice! Human
justice: explains, that NO ONE is entitled to make me or any other person, LESS
THAN EQUAL! WE ARE, honored by the miracle of our lives, therefore RESPECT
& DIGNITY, IS a clear & certain right.
The judge herein
has made a decision/ as has the gambler Selimi. The judge is reviewed beyond
the scope of his error to establish the distinction of judicial error & its
consequences. Therefore the judge is to be considered, as an example only (the
majority of judges would rule the same)/ to make Aan example@ IS a common method of the court, wherein a PERSON is USED, to the
approach of abuse (OR IS ABUSED) merely to establish; this behavior is unkind
& unacceptable. Therefore this is a lesson to the court, rather than an
affront to the judge. The association of respect for judicial position enters
here/ and is answered: WHERE was the respect do to me?
The question: WHAT
do I expect to gain?
The answer:
NOTHING, I can expect to gain of a personal nature, can replace a plain &
simple life, of learning & doing what I choose without interference. The
education applied to society, which creates a BETTER society for us all, IS a
benefit to me as well/ the DUTY to prevent society from attacking itself for
lack of respect, for all its members, IS a demand to educate & then Alet them decide@. The question of happiness, assembles the task: AIF we do not work together, Then how can we complain, when predators
pick us one at a time, to be their toy@!
Be it known, the
critical review of the judge involved herein, DOES NOT constitute a specific
aggression against this particular judge. Instead the Adramatic license@ establishes 3 separate realities: 1, the
fundamental importance of the job of a judge does/ and, what it sounds like, to
the people abused by a judicial system that simply does not care! 2, the
critical reality of primary importance constitutional documents play, in the
social fabric of PEACE & FAIR PLAY. 3, the need to re-establish the
importance of the work of a judge/ the honor of being a critical link within a
peaceful society/ & most important, that fact that humanity DOES want to be
noticed (almost all). IF they are not humanity becomes disillusioned with
integrity, and the possibilities of power, or apathy, along with temptations to
disregard those without power or influence are sure to come. ONLY those with
true dignity survive.
Public view is
necessary/ public appreciation of the entire legal system, APOLICE, JUDICIAL, lawyers, and so on. They are the single most critical
link between social/ national demise & social happiness. Why do this if no
one looks or cares about you? The fact is, if you don=t care, then why should they? This is not a lesson of integrity, but a
simple lesson in humanity.
Therefore the
reality of purpose in this review of judicial behaviors is far more complex,
than simply assigning blame; it is instead, Awe are at a
distinct decision/ not because the judicial system needs repair, but more
simply The American experience, is based upon a Constitutional foundation. This
is found to be crumbling and weak/ ready to break! IF this is not fixed/ then
This is my third
trip through the judicial system, & the reality is clear.
The decision to
investigate, assemble your own conclusions, & choose; transfers, the
obligation, therefore the result, into your hands. It is my hope, that YOU are
worthy of the job.
ITEM #27
THE
CASE OF
Plaintiff:
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
V.
Defendants:
ALIT
SELIMI
STATE
OF
THE
COURT SYSTEM OF
THE
The
CITY OF
The
CITY OF
PLEADINGS
The discipline intended: to return to the conscious decisions identified as the Bill of Rights, the certain empathy for justice & fair play of the Declaration of Independence, & the magnanimity of the constitution, as it intended to rescue our lives from the relentless persecution of power/ STOLEN by others.
To facilitate the dissolution of power from Athe lawyer@/ there CANNOT be any further allowance for Aletting the lawyer@; establish a fee/ define a punishment amount (they should NEVER have attained this/ they STOLE IT)/ claim an entitlement from ANY client/ or fundamentally be subjected to the Awhim of a judge@. Therefore it should become commonplace, that when sufficient evidence is generated, by several cases, from more than one lawyer: upon sufficient proof, that judge, SHALL be evicted from his or her bench/ may be stripped of their license, & penalties assessed by the public, and subject to their vote. THIS IS BALANCE! The expectation and decree of any courtroom.
The critical reality is one of power NOT as a
situation of government or courts or officials, but of the consequence of Athe power to control@. Here the question
examines humanity, as that portion of the reality that constitutes a threat. It
is the existence of a threat, that sustains & supports the demand for
power/ therefore it is the critical reality of Apeople,
controlled by the desire, to explain life as their personal problem/ rather
than our reality@.
Reality divides here, becoming the people who are enslaved into a life of
desperation, & the people supported by society, whose lives are benefited
by the enslavement of the others. The question;
Society is comprised of ALL its citizens and the
RIGHT to an appropriate education, the EQUALITY of fundamental access combined
with legal rights to those same opportunities, and the critical reliance upon
fair & honest health care: DO provide all the necessary foundations for a
happy society. AYin order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of libertyY.@ IS sufficient proof that these
statements DO belong in this trial/ this courtroom/ this redress of grievances.
The
discipline intended: appropriate schooling, NOT Acollege drivel@! From the 4th grade on education should be
designed for the profession suited to the child=s wants and needs, and honest willingness to work. The
college will complain stating a Awell-rounded education@. My niece goes to Southern Illinois University at
carbondale IL as a freshman she was provided a course on the homosexual male
prostitute complete with adequate video to insure she did not miss any details/
She said it was allowed to miss the class HOWEVER if she did her grade would
suffer/ meaning her grade would fall/ meaning her financial aid would also
fail! She attended the classes/ and there are many such classes with no more
value than Athe manure which spewed out of
these classes@. COLLEGE EDUCATION Is about what Athe student wants, AND PAYS FOR@ NOT what the college or the
professor desires/ this is NOTHING MORE than a tyranny for power and money (do
they not get paid for these classes). WHERE is the college president, and
governing bodies/ WHERE is the State Government, as it is a state run
university? This is a pedafile, if you consider these as youth/ This is an
extortionist intent upon deliberately defiling those who are led to believe Acollege is the answer@, if you understand losing
financial aid is in effect Alosing the future you have chosen@. IF these officials were described it would be as Adrunken fools/ driving a vehicle
into the crowd, [how much harm can they do]@.
It
is past time, for the REMOVAL OF TRAPS, from society. The reality of behavioral
science has been to lure & tempt & DECEIVE society, rather than Ato secure the rights of the people,
from the consent of the governed/ we are led upon foundations of deceit where
instead of information and honesty. The opposite is true, that we are subjected
to the decisions of the others, and lied to about the consequences Abecause they believe, they are
smarter than society itself@. They are arrogant bastards everyone.
The
discipline expected: LEAVE THE CHILDREN ALONE! NO more advertising directed or
even available to ANYTHING, that is strictly for children! Identify EVERY
DETAIL about financial & legal consequences/ to this end EVERY
advertisement shall contain the same time, room, or depth of attraction, for
all legal & financial ramifications as is used in the promotion of the
goods. WE ARE PEOPLE NOT PREY!
Here
the government is petitioned according to the first amendment to support
sufficient evidence/ provide it to the people/ and let the people decide: as a
true Aredress of grievances@ as is created for our benefit, and
according to the constitution Ain order to form a more perfect union@ NOT as any government shall decide for us/ I DO NOT
VOTE FOR YOU HERE TO VOTE FOR ME/ I WANT THIS VOTE FOR MYSELF A TRUE DEMOCRACY!
Supported
by this 1st amendment/ and all the rights of a true DEMOCRACY/
Redress is presented, as it was in the trials 94-1943 & 94-1944 that WE as
a society have AN UNDENIABLE RIGHT to decide such matters as the AVietnam war@/ shall we allow officials to draft
men & women; to steal the national resources; WITHOUT a declaration of war?
Volunteers may go/ BUT NOT FORCED! A true policing action must be sanctioned by
the United Nations, and thereby certified as necessary/ this may be reviewed by
the public, the 51 percent rule applies.
Other
Redress matters would be: Medical debts shall be A PERCENTAGE of income &
assets, (if as a Abillionaire@ you choose no medical attention/
its your choice).
The
violations of true democracy as are indicated throughout this case, represents
nothing less than true deceptions, incorporated into society with the aid of
the press. The right of the citizenry to be adequately informed about true
consequences/ the right of the citizenry to enforce & enumerate the
definitions that ARE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, its Bill of Rights,
and its Declaration of what we fight against/ literally are the guards for the
future security of the people/ this is an absolute, and inalienable right, which
AWE THE PEOPLE@, have paid for! Do we not fight
the wars? Do we the people NOT OWN this government?
NOW
COMES THE PEOPLE:
IF you think it is UNNECESSARY/ then each one of you, come before me and let the court jester (the one dressed in a judges robe) steal this from you/ you may NOT give it, he steals from me, therefore he must steal from you! Then back up Aand I=ll kick you in the ass, as you did to me@.
This is not a game, every aspect of every word SHALL BE scrutinized, for the purpose of this trial: to return to a survivable reality, to establish a reasonable world, to fix the damage BEFORE it destroys us all!
The assumption of minimal influence: will be mitigated by information sent to different countries; different representatives of simple expectations, such as religions and more.
The assumption of death: will be mitigated by the necessary information being released to curb to need for any consequent further actions by me.
I have NO political aspirations/ NO monetary gain is implied or created / I DO NOT LEAD!
The religious reference in the exhibit or case IS MY LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, and does not bear any other influence upon this case. Therefore any attempt to discount or discard my legal rights in reference to a religious statement IS NULLIFIED by the reference established, in the most fundamental United States Document; the Declaration of Independence QUOTE: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness@.
The merciless ignorance and complete stupidity of genetic mutation IS transforming our lives, and our food, and our world. We are clearly & certainly UNDER ATTACK, by these mercenaries who do sell our futures for no more than the arrogant pride, Ato play god@, if only for a very short time. Testify with your life, your body, your family, and your future that the promises made, shall not destroy us instead!
Testify as well, that the debt you incurred for us, by the methods of AYOUR VERY BEST, university intelligence@ is not the same as the tragedy they now design for us only in destroying nature, they DO destroy life itself.
Testify according to the reality of weapons of mass destruction and our true and accurate existence of 3 hours from the end of the world/ at the hands of one single insane person, we and the world are dead.
Testify accordingly what manner of torture & mutilation do you believe is FAIR, as the sons & daughters & lovers & bodies & friends and ALL LIFE IMPORTANT, lay dying. Testify exactly how you will compensate humanity for your participation in this extinction. Testify and BE VERY CLEAR, how it is that you, have declared yourself to be competent: to make a decision which gambles with all life on earth! Testify as to what eternity should do for you/ for your part in these murderous & terrorist & and traitorous acts?
All these realities represent ARROGANT BASTARDS are making decisions for us. Therefore the following statement will come true/ if these truths are not corrected: for a reality of extinction as will surely come (as certain as the sun rising); Those who are living will bring each and every one, TO TRIAL/ EVERYONE who perpetrated and initiated and helped in these terrorist acts, the university, the professor, the student, the maker of tools, the government official, everyone down to the salesman who delivered the bolts or even the paper or phone line.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT, to gamble with our lives! Not for tears, not for babies, Not for profit or fame or just being the BASTARD you are.
For the MASS MURDER OF LIFE/ for the destruction of peace/ for the EVIL of betting with our lives THIS HAS BECOME OUR REALITY!
Pride takes what NO ONE OWNS, or has a right to claim, and makes it a game. Pride Awaves our very lives, before our eyes and says; you can=t make me stop@.
When the truth declares enough/ there will not be a single second of mercy in all of eternity waiting for you. REPENT while you can.
It is the tools which make this terrorism possible/ therefore possession of such a tool IS akin TO POSSESSION of a nuclear warhead ONLY WITH MUCH more potential for harm.
Remember this; that the pursuit of knowledge is not evil/ even those who are too arrogant to recognize their stupidity, and TOO PROUD to accept, Athey cannot control life/ BUT THEY CAN destroy it@ are just human. Do you think ASORRY@ will be enough/ THIS IS NOT A GAME! The consequences of Aplaying god@ ARE, when you fail/ then you shall be called the DEVIL, and the lake of fire, SHALL BE your eternity!
It is NOT my desire/ it is my duty to fight against the destruction of life/ my responsibility to warn you of the consequences/ my FAITH to say to you: MERCY is not beyond your grasp/ but also my reality to say to YOU, and to the world itself: IF you fail this test, IF you choose NOT TO RESPECT LIFE/ IF YOU ABANDON LIFE/ then TRULY you also shall be abandoned by life, and the end is VERY NEAR! Do you think worldwide depression will not create insanity? Do you think the mutilation of nature itself can have any other conclusion? PROVE ME WRONG!
The court will envision Aa circumstance beyond their jurisdiction@ . The court is reminded and re-instructed: this case is also the reality of Constitutional denial of guaranteed rights/ the theft of personal possessions by the legislative & executive branch of the state of Illinois/ the FRAUD of federal appeals court judges/ and the endangerment of the entire peoples of the UNITED STATES by economic, genetic, weapons of mass destruction, and the fundamental theft of Constitutional values of the same/ and as a result the endangerment of the world itself. As well as the clear & deliberate RAPE of all future generations of the United States as well as the people of the world by the destruction and inexcusable consumption of resource depletion which cannot be sustained. When one single critical resource is gone WHAT THEN? It is said the resource potash is in critical supply/ when it disappears forever, and food production is cut in half: your green lawns won=t matter.
These things are illegal actions, DISTINCTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the right of trial is CERTIFIED BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. Any assertion, that the direct association with death, as is evident in each of these primary issues/ any assertion that Constitutional rights can be SIMPLY DISCARDED, is not sufficient grounds must be proven.
The case continues from treason to trespass: under the following conditions
IT IS MY EXPECTATION, that until this legal matter is resolved, a moratorium IS EXPECTED upon all genetic alteration or experimentation or mutilation of NATURE! It is the people=s right, it is my right/ that these things should not proceed until society decides. This is not unlike a Aleaking dam@ whereby it would be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to protect the citizens that will die. The failure to respond, aligns you the court Aexactly, where the person who helped Mcvey mix the bomb stood/ tell the story, OR be responsible for the outcome@. The possibility EXISTS, therefore the RESPONSIBILITY EXISTS AS WELL. This is a controversy of abortion/ the abortion occurring is Science and politics have decided they are the legal guardian of nature/ therefore they have a right to abort nature if they so please! The consequence of human guardianship IS ALWAYS THE SAME, there is a rush to become RICH, and it doesn=t matter who dies in the process/ then when Athe wealth is contained@ by a few, the poor are controlled and subjected as slaves to increase the money. When that doesn=t work, the wealthy TAKE THE MONEY, and RUN, leaving the common citizen to clean up their mess. When that doesn=t work LIES AND THIEVERY are used as is the current case of economic assassination in America wherein as the U.S. documents prove EVERY TAXPAYER OWES almost a half million dollars each! DID they tell you, this was happening? NO! DID they not know what they were doing? THEY WERE LAUGHING AT US ALL, while transforming the world into a place devastated by their actions/ a world in jeopardy of complete economic chaos! ARE THEY CONCERNED? NO! They Athose who believe they are way TOO SMART for us@ fully expect to Atake their winnings and relax in leisure!@ These do NOT realize Atheir actions will KILL them too@.
AM I, Aranting and raving@ or am I telling you the truth? SEARCH FOR YOURSELF!
The most selfish reality the world has ever seen, occurs in this very day. The truth IS, that physical bodies, mental health, & life itself can be damaged to the point where death is preferable. These, fearing death as an absolute (no faith at all) ARE USING every aspect of emotional temptation or threat, to Aplead for their life or the lives of those who survive with them@.
Love, allows the consequence of life/ FEAR merely faces the loneliness and feels terrorized . Therefore it is understandable, not only to want relief (as we all would); but in searching the reality of their request these truths appear:
The consequence of these facts are SELFISHNESS doesn=t care! Tools are NOT KNOWLEDGE, BUT MERE OPPORTUNITIES. YOU have NEVER APLAYED@ with life before as a consequence of your intelligence or stupidity/ YOU have NEVER before, experienced the failures associated with GENETIC COLLAPSE.
NO trust is warranted, RATHER the clear & certain fact is, that LIES exist here/ NOT truth. The promise is Alife exists because mutation formed it/ THEREFORE whatever we do can not do harm@! The FACT IS: mutation does exist around you, take a look; it is in EVERY pain and EVERY disease, and every problem you have/ THEREFORE it is the mutation which seeks to destroy / NOT NATURE, because 6 billion genes cannot be wrong
WE
ARE DESIGNED, BY THOUGHT/ WE ARE CREATED BY WISDOM/ WE ARE LITERALLY composed
of bodies which live by discipline and order/ NOT chaos! Prove me wrong!
ITEM #28
James F. Osterbur
2191 CR. 2500 E.
VS
case
# 01-LM-16
Alit Selimi
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
The
undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice/ court papers, was
served upon the above-named persons by enclosing the same in an envelope so
addressed, with first class or better postage fully prepaid, and by depositing
said envelopes in a U. S. Post office mail box in
Further,
a copy shall have been also delivered by mail or personal delivery to the court
/ 5th Judicial Circuit of IL, Vermilion county,
Those addresses are
Alit Selimi
his lawyer
Roy G. Wilcox 612 N. Logan
The Circuit Court 5th Judicial
Circuit, 7 North Vermilion,
office of the clerk Rm 1A
Mr. Joseph Schillaci, Director, Administrate
office, office of the courts 840 S. Spring St. Springfield IL 62704
And the Appellate court, 5th
judicial district, 14th and
Internal Revenue Service
Office of the Governor, state house Rm. 207,
President of the Senate, James Philip, State
house 2nd & capitol St.,
Speaker of the house, Michael J. Madigan, 300
State house,
Attorney General 500 S. Second,
I,
James F. Osterbur, do so certify
____________________________
ITEM #29
1
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
PLAINTIFF: JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county rd 2500 E.
for the common public citizen
intended as a class (public) action suit
DEFENDANT:
STATE OF
1400 W. PARK
for the medical industry
AND
THE JUDGES OF THE U.S.C.A. OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT,
Richard A. Posner
John L. Coffey
Daniel A. Manion
DIRECT APPEAL IS MADE TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, UNDER OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, and insure Domestic tranquility.....
PRIMARY JURISDICTION is found under ARTICLE 3 of the Constitution, as herein described.
SECONDARY JURISDICTION is found under the eleventh Amendment as herein described.
AREA'S OF LAW established
TITLE 28 USC SECTION 1343 (a) 1, 2, 3, 4
and
TITLE 15 COMMERCE AND TRADE LAW
AND those laws statutes, as listed throughout.
APPEAL is made under title 28 USC 2107 as listed within 60 days.
An Appeal brought forth in forma pauperis
A discriminatory cause is declared, against court actions which violate Constitutional law and Statute, Due Process, Equal Protection of the law, common procedure, and Discrimination Practices which have created a system of Judicial Prejudices, Rather than, Constitutional adherence to the LAW. (the constitution and Bill of Rights ARE the supreme law of the land).
Two separate appeals, 94-1943 & 94-1944 United States Court of Appeals,
7th circuit,
These legal causes clearly establish a pattern of corruption which has spread, "like a virus" through the court system and has replaced Constitutional law with, "Discretion and/or I don't understand, (an improper response)". The issues and law and democratic process are clearly established: the result established by the court IS, "LAW, IS dependent upon the discretion of a judge." An issue in VIOLATION of every Constitutional principle of this country!
The question raised: what constitutes judicial intervention, to whom is it available, and WHY?
The question initiated: DOES LAW, direct the Court? Is the letter of the law, substantiated by Judicial action? OR does the court through these Judges or others, intervene with personal prejudice, corrupting not only law but Democracy, as subject to their whim. The Constitution says obligatory Jurisdiction exists particularly on issues of Due Process and EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, and CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION (the exact cause of appeals 94-1943 & 94-1944).
These appeals 94-1943 & 94-1944, Establish Judicial Corruption; as ""Discretion overrules LAW, OR when the litigant, is poor, or not formally trained as a lawyer, different rules apply. The evidence is within court papers. These appeals establish Judicial corruption as, "the minimum mandatory judicial intervention required by Constitutional decree, was DENIED, the judge had NO RIGHT). Evidence is within the court papers. These cases/appeals establish and clearly affirm, first Amendment Rights, seeking true Democracy as the basis of this Nation, and shows cause why it must be sought, AND does demand adherence to the fundamental principles of Democracy as clarified and presented in Constitutional documents.
These cases/appeals identify MONOPOLISTIC REALITIES, and the absolute failure of EQUAL PROTECTION of the LAW, and DO demand the law and the intent of the constitution be carried out. These cases/appeals demand Judicial actions in CONFORMANCE to an appeal based within Constitutional Right and Law.
These cases/appeals reflect personal injury and its consequence and establish the injustice.
These cases/appeals identify a corrupt state law section 2-622 of the
Appeal/case defined as 94-1944 demonstrates the failure of the Social Security Act to codify Judicial actions, establishing its failure.
To which the Court replies: "this court (United States Court of
Appeals, 7th circuit,
The charge is made: The LAW does demand, I as a defendant, be charged with the "crime" prior to, before I can be convicted of it. THE MIRANDA STATEMENT PROVES THIS STATEMENT BEYOND DOUBT, I am entitled to that right.
The initiating cause of appeal 94-1943.
The charge is made: The LAW demands the guidelines of the Social Security Act be adhered to. A primary clause in 94-1944, established within motion hearing 92-S-1561circuit court, sixth district, champaign county.
The charge is made within 94-1944: The LAW, DEMANDS EQUALITY, for each member of Society within the Courtroom, DISCRIMINATION CASES PROVE THIS STATEMENT BEYOND DOUBT! Yet allows a corporate entity to apply literal extortion, IN Board of Regents V. Roth (1972) " a property interest requires, {A LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF ENTITLEMENT} to a benefit, as opposed to an abstract need or unilateral expectation of it." and in Meyer V. Neb (1923) Liberty interest , "those privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men". In 94-1944 there was no legal recourse for the citizen. This claim is made within the dictionary meanings: EXTORT, to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power. (as identified, a situation wherein the "quality of the service" does not matter). HONEST, free from fraud or deception, legitimate truthful. (as identified, a Reality wherein a complaint may be registered and assessment made by reasonable methods) And WAGE a payment usually of money for labor or services according to contract. (as identified, a reputable method of computing actual VALUE, received, on an individual basis, NOT flat rates for 30 seconds of attention or rejection, as is the current method.
The initiating cause of appeal 94-1944 ADHERES to the simple words, "I" entered the emergency room clearly asking for help, but received drugs I plainly rejected, was evaluated and drugged by a machine, and otherwise was unable to testify on my own behalf as to the problem, I was experiencing (no one was within listening distance, and I was the only patient in ER, at the time). I WAS refused treatment or examination by their doctor and was slandered by the same, and in general treated very poorly in ER, for which I will NOT pay full price!
The court refuses to mediate saying there is NO LAW. The Court is hereby reminded, These are causes involving property before the court, among other issues. PAGE 3 The court is further reminded: "the question of procedural safeguards as needed to insure fair treatment and reliability of result, for the public were lost. The States' promise to supervise the procedures through which laws are enforced upon individuals, IS ABANDONED. The basic function of procedural due process is to afford, "an opportunity to be heard....'at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner", thereby promoting fairness and accuracy in the resolution of disputes. Fuentes V. Shevin (1972). Procedural due process has disappeared from ME twice, therefore it cannot be considered an isolated incident! Appeal 94-1944 demands where is the protection of citizen Rights; as clearly defined and defended and made LAW within the Bill of Rights and guaranteed by the Constitution. Is appeal 94-1943 any different?
The DEMAND is SIMPLE: Constitutionally refute the charges and the demand OR substantiate MY RIGHT as a public citizen to Judicial action and constitutional law. In decisive language ADHERE TO THE LAW OF THIS LAND, and the true concept of justice, and ESTABLISH JUSTICE within/through HONOR and its subsequent actions.
The court of appeals Excuses itself by reference to Mather V. Village of Mundelein 869 F. 2d 356, 357 (7th circuit 1989) per curium:: alleging there is some slight connection between: MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, to be charged with a crime prior to conviction, appeal 94-1943. MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be EQUAL, within a court of law to a corporate entity, appeal 94-1944, and the substantiated realities defining a monopoly exists. That procedural safeguards are deficient, and property and life (its reputation and standing) have been deprived and removed from me, a citizen like any other.
The court has refused to adhere to the Social Security Act, an initiating cause, or define it, a right due, but denied.
The court abandons the legitimate claim, section 2-622 of the Ill code of civil procedure is in DIRECT Contention with Constitutional law, state and Federal, DENYING to me DUE PROCESS, as I MUST seek justice against the medical establishment by going through the medical establishment, at their considerable cost and discretion or submit to extortion (the payment of a bill I DO NOT OWE). Section 2-622 excuses the Court, even banishes the court, from medical matters, without a doctors consent; IS THIS DUE PROCESS. The lawyers of this area assure me they will not accept a case of malpractice under $500,000.00, leaving a HUGE GAP between contestable lawsuits and outright wrongs, as did initiate appeal 94-1944. The Courts abandonment of a citizens right to obtain knowledge or verdict as regards the substantiated charge of monopoly and Constitutional failure as provided by the present medical billing system, appeal 94-1944. Payments for things such as medicines and surgical supplies, at the hospitals discretion, rather than as a bid from competitors, (Trauma is NOT free enterprise nor does competition recognize the possibility of choice, the NEED is immediate. The location of emergency care or doctor is irrelevant within an emergency. The word emergency identifies the entire market and it is a singular location and staff, for the patient. The trauma dictates acceptance, without complaint. Trauma demands, if possible it will be done here, NO CHOICE! The business of medicine is afflicted with the public interest. PAGE 4
Most importantly a tyranny exists: that being the FAILURE to address the issue of 1st amendment Constitutional rights found within the words, "REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES". That being according to the "plain meaning rule, provides that sources other than the statute are not to be consulted unless the language of the statute is ambiguous". Caminetti V. United States (1917) "Where the language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning the duty of interpretation does not arise and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion". Issues involving public notice are NOT prohibited by the eleventh amendment, Rather , legal notice of public consequence insuring governmental integrity, "through a Redress of Grievances", constitutes true class action for Democracy: the truth being, all the citizenry are affected by the law or fact or rights, and their entitlements to these things, their recognition, honest evidence, and majority vote to enforce the relief sought IS, [Democracy in action, and Justice through and within legal recognition of Constitutional law].
Substantiated by appeals 94-1943 & 94-1944 and their subsequent briefs (which the court failed to considered) Democracy or Civil power IS the foundation principle of this government and this society. The court has NO RIGHT, to exercise any so-called, Discretionary interpretation in matters of social/legal /moral issues, THAT ARE SO FUNDAMENTAL, to this particular government, "and its pledge of Democracy , its honorable Constitutional doctrines, and its decree to the people, that they are endowed with just powers as, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES...." IN ANY MANNER EXCEPT, how may this foundation issue, be presented Properly to ALL the people, for their vote! The people DESERVE, THE AUTHORITY which this Constitution allows, intends and demands!
This foundation issue is aligned directly with section 15 of the bill of rights, "That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
The charge of Constitutional piracy is leveled at the judges who would describe these matters as equivalent to a simple case of: "a holiday display on the lawn in front of the village hall". These issues, as presented herein, were NOT HIDDEN!
The charge of FRAUD is leveled at the judges who believe: "judicial discretion supersedes the LAW and Constitutional adherence, which does establish the foundation of this Democracy, as subject to their prejudice or whim.
I can and have substantiated each and every issue raised throughout these cases/appeals within constitutional documents and do now establish these charges in the words of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (a judge is NOT greater than any citizen) that all men are created equal (the only difference between a judge and a citizen is the level of obedience to the law, the judge MUST DO BETTER)); inalienable rights (irregardless of prejudice, the law and its crucial distinction of life, liberty and freedom MUST BE FAIR/EQUAL for /to each citizen). These charges are further established by the words "mock trial", (where are the laws, or the words, which prove their assertions; they have NONE).
The Declaration of Independence, establishes the words; "he has refused his PAGE 5 assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good", and summarizes the anguish of the people within its words, "In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for REDRESS, in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be [a judge] of a free people."
My UNDENIABLE REQUEST for a Redress of Grievances according to the first amendment and its intent, for/as a foundation for all matters, as were fought for/died for and defined by the Bill of Rights adopted June 12, 1776, to be the peoples guarantee, that the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED, SHALL RULE! Substantiates the charge of Constitutional Piracy!
Distinctive to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, THIS APPEAL LEGITIMATELY DEFINED WITHIN THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, section 1 those words being: "The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior......"
Section 2.1 The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law an equity arising under this constitution.
Section 3.1 Treason against the
The issue of Treason arises within the established cases as consummated by this appeal, and the judges which assented to the mandates of the court..........and does direct the court to the intent vested within the judicial system and the Constitutional realities culminating as: WE the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, 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 established Reality or intent or spirit of the constitution and its Bill of rights, Distinctly limit, AUTHORITY OF A FREE PEOPLE, to Constitutional Restrictions; But more importantly each and EVERY Department of Government and its officials/representatives IS established and CONTROLLED by these limits. The failure to adhere publicly and privately IS A VIOLENCE and a deprivation to the people and is DANGEROUS, to our MOST BASIC RIGHTS!
The case of Mc Culloch V. Maryland (1819) clarifies that it is congress, with the power NOT the judiciary. The Judiciary IS the GUARANTOR of Constitutional Rights and NO MORE.
So identified, the "discretion of the Court" as used, establishes abuse of power and of the citizenry
Establishes Bias against the people and for their specific Judicial brotherhood.
Established prejudice against the Bill of Rights , as written, adopted 6/12/1776, the document which alone, assembled the people to fight and die for freedom , liberty, and honor as identified therein. While the Declaration of Independence speaks definitively about the limits and the need and the right and the Respect, for what these things did cost, and were to correct.
The lower courts have FAILED and those responsible for that failure MUST, be PAGE 6 disciplined or dismissed according to their station and role.
It is the Court which has stated: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE, and it therefore returns to them as their judge, before the people.
From a dictionary, LAW is a term describing "a rule prescribed by authority". In a Democracy LAW is a term describing the peoples' decision and the obligations of their officials to act. LAW demands, and therefore DENIES discretion of the court exists, beyond differences of religious preference.
The issue represented: SHOW ME, the "frivolous nature" of these appeals and their prior cases/appeals, and IDENTIFY the courts discretion as LEGAL PROCEDURE in the matters of Constitutional right and 1st Amendment law".
The fifth Amendment proclaims My Right, to due process of law, the initiating case, of appeal 94-1943 I was convicted without a trial, of fraud, a criminal offense. the initiating case of appeal 94-1944, established there is NO public law, which leads directly to the charge of extortion, over matters of private property (equal rights, when subjected to medical insufficiency).
The fourteenth Amendment demands Equal protection, as do I. The state of
The first Amendment DEMANDS NO LAW CAN EXIST in any form prohibiting or abridging the freedom or the right of the people peaceable to petition the government for a "Redress for Grievances", IF, I have caused for review, the words "peaceably to assemble" Article 9 of the Constitution qualifies this application of consent by the people, to the first amendment words, "or abridging the freedom of the press". IF CORRUPTION or the public trust, is violated, the public MUST BE informed ACCURATELY, and with AUTHORITY. THIS IS DEMOCRACY OF THE PEOPLE IN ACTION. SHOW ME, a more peaceful method for challenging corruption in any form than the court, OR show me that Due Process or Equal Protection are invalid matters.
The seventh Amendment Declares the Right of trial shall be preserved and I DO state, FAR GREATER liberties and properties are at stake than the value identified. Prove to ME this amendment is reversed, abolished, or invalid, for this case, and this cause.
The fourth Amendment affirms that the people shall be secure, court documents SHOW this amendment has been trampled upon by failure of the court to uphold Constitutional rights, and minimum standards of ethical behavior.
The sixth Amendment applies directly to appeal 94-1943, and its prior cases/appeals, demanding, I, have the right to be informed in any action. I, have PAGE 7 shown, the court destroyed this right and produced tyranny in its place. Show my error.
The thirteenth Amendment DEMANDS, involuntary servitude shall NOT exist, I, have shown , this Amendment has been trampled upon; the courts failure to intervene defines involuntary servitude (extortion) exists through medical billing realities. Appeal 94-1944 establishes NO LEGAL RECOURSE exists for trauma patients and the resultant billing (particularly for the poor), IRREGARDLESS of treatment, received. Medical trauma is the result of an invasion, NOT a personal choice and establishes the victim, as a HOSTAGE, to medicine and its resultant realities. The minimal guaranteed, "blessings of liberty", can only be described as; The subjection of man/woman by insurrections within, or destruction of the body by traumatic means, shall be limited to a FAIR AND EQUAL appraisal of financial hardship (a percentage of income, apportioned to wealth), as WE ALL DO rely upon a vast network of people and resources, both providing the basis and foundation for helping anyone/ everyone. WE DO WANT MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE. We as a people do, have an inalienable and infeasible right, to share in the means which represent the right to acquire and benefit from our heritage.
We, as a people Do have the obligation to accept our fair share of this countries distinct medical effort to "Promote the general welfare". But with restrictions that we, as a people, shall decide. SHOW MY ERROR!
The tenth Amendment DECLARES the powers NOT delegated are reserved to the people. The REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the first amendment, agrees and establishes the civil power exists to IDENTIFY AND ARTICULATE AND VOTE UPON, corruption of Government issues and others and their REMEDY! There is NO OTHER OPTION than to establish corruption as a violation of constitutional limits, therefore the court has RESPONSIBILITY AND DUTY AND JURISDICTION over these definitions and must be subject to the peoples needs and privileges and civil power. SHOW MY ERROR, or show us all that the power of the peoples vote, over corruption and other foundation principles, has no value, according to the Constitution.
I will show you "Title 42 USCA section 1983, as alleged, in Treatise on constitutional law, substance and procedure KF 4550. R63 2.11 The very purpose of 1983, was to interpose the federal courts between the states and the people, as guardians of the peoples federal rights- to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, "whether that action be executive legislative, or judicial" 407 US at 242, 92 S.CT at 216. Also alleged in the same text: The supreme court in view of the EX Parte Young 209 US 123, 28 S. CT 441 exception allowed federal court to hear suits against state officials if the suit seeks to force them to conform their conduct to federal law. Appeal 94-1943 clearly sought DUE PROCESS. appeal 94-1944 clearly sought EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (JUSTICE). Each seeks the Declaration of rights described within the constitution and the bill of rights, FOR ALL PEOPLE, as the basis and foundation of government! Show me the evidence that I am exempt, or accept the duty. FAILURE to establish this question produces the call for impeachment! I will NOT accept the frivolous excuses of the past, honor your position! ESTABLISH THIS CAUSE, Not a retrial of two individual cases RATHER THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO, A REDRESS OF PAGE 8 GRIEVANCES. The proper Judicial regard for INALIENABLE RIGHTS , and the fundamental limits and principles and strict subordination of the Judiciary, to the constitution, WITH PENALTIES. THE DETERMINATION OF LAW involved within the charge "medical monopoly", as has been brought through the lower courts to your door.
Chapter 21 of the Civil Rights Code agrees under title 42 section 1981
it suggests equal rights under the law, NOT discrimination against the poor and prejudice against the non-lawyer.
section 1985 Depriving a person of rights and privileges. (this is a case of equal protection and immunity from prejudice)
section 1986 suggest a judge with the knowledge and power to prevent courtroom abuse SHALL BE LIABLE
section 2000e-6 Demands action by the attorney general for discrimination in employment (A FAR LESSER CRIME THAN COURTROOM ABUSE)
TITLE 15 of COMMERCE AND TRADE LAW
Section 1. "Trusts in restraint of trade are illegal". The definition of trust (dictionary) "a combination of firms or corporations formed by legal agreement esp. one that reduces or threatens to reduce competition". The medical industry withholds information necessary to the public, for adequate risk assessment of doctors, hospitals and procedures: Clearly this practice offends the public and destroys competition as no proper evaluation can be made, a clear danger to the people. Medicine is a service industry, the people have a right to inform, complain of a bad job, or praise a good job; there is no competition without this information the people are at RISK of life and limb, without it. The question is, whose side is government on?
This statement agrees with the per se rule: "having a pernicious effect on competition and lacking any redeeming value."
Title 15, section 2 Monopolizing trade is a felony. The definition of monopoly: "exclusive possession or control". The medical profession controls directly or indirectly, the rate of acceptance in hospitals, colleges, and has complete control over interns, which CLEARLY establishes the possibility of supply/demand bringing the price of medical services down, as an IMPOSSIBILITY! They control the numbers of doctors, which controls the competition, which allows out of control pricing, A MONOPOLY, over the people.
The rule of reason: "only unreasonable restraints of trade should be illegal" AGREES!
Title 15 section 4 Jurisdiction of the courts, a duty of the
The efficiency model, breaks down entirely: "the natural tendency of a firm......is to be efficient" FAILS, completely due to the public concept that higher prices equate to higher quality; the public is HIDDEN from the truth as previously described, Due to illegal restraint of the press !
Medicine is about life, death, a whole body and more, the medical emergency PAGE 9 precludes and prevents all hope of a FAIR situation (one in which either party may leave without harm, does not exist). This Reality alone establishes a monopoly over the Individual. There is NO opportunity to select (shop around) the emergency demands immediate attention, NOT a business decision; there is NO REAL information available to enable a true decision, there are high costs and large investments of time required to interview medical professionals precluding the common citizen from anything but take whomever you get. Sickness and emergency occur at all hours and different locations, and there is a "doctor fraternity, secret society ", which suggest don't turn in me, and I won't turn in you.
Title 15 section 27 says the court MUST accept whatever qualifies without objection under this act, as legitimate cause to investigate and determine according to law.
Justifiable alternatives to these practices have been suggested within the lower court papers.
JUSTICE, equates everyone as an EQUAL, the function of the court is to distinguish merit by obtaining FACT, Justice fails the critical test when rule or a diploma (lawyer), are favored over the actual witness (participant); EQUALITY MEANS, judged on merit, NOT appearance (words or otherwise).
The DISCRIMINATION is clear, beyond any doubt , these court actions were NEVER about justice or the lack of it, from the court. Review of the documents WILL SHOW, no room for doubt.
JUSTICE IS HONORABLE, only when it is TRUE. Justice conceived by the punctuation mark, as right or wrong, IS TYRANNY!
Listing of the court cases/appeals for 94-1943
Trial and motions 92-S-2991 COLE V. OSTERBUR 6th judicial circuit, champaign county IL 61801 JUDGMENT FRAUD
GEN 4-93-0441 Cole V. Osterbur in the Appellate Court of IL, fourth district
JUDGMENT DISMISSED, failure to comply with supreme court rules concerning form and content.
STATE SUPREME COURT Cole V. Osterbur 76128
JUDGMENT DENIED
FEDERAL COURT 94-2001 OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS U.S. District Court,
central district of,
JUDGMENT FRIVOLOUS
Listing of court cases/appeals for 94-1944
92-S-1561
JUDGMENT DISMISSED
92-C-1222
JUDGMENT LACK OF LAW
GEN 4-93-0847
JUDGMENT FAILURE TO FILE COHERENT BRIEF
#7645
JUDGMENT DENIED
FEDERAL COURT 94-2060 OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al Defendants
in the central district of Illinois,
JUDGMENT FRIVOLOUS
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
I, JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR, do hereby certify, a true and correct copy of the direct appeal to the supreme court Osterbur V. United States of America et al Defendants, as been delivered postage prepaid, first class, to the U. S. mail service, or hand delivered by me. on this date______________________
to the following locations
U.S. ATTORNEY 14 towne centre 2. E. Main st,
the GOVERNOR OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,
Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey fifth floor, 30 Main st.
for
and one mailing containing 3 packets (one for each judge ) to
U.S.C.A. 7TH CIRCUIT 219 S. DEARBORN
ALL INFORMATION is hereby requested regarding supeona's etc.
concerning these matters
_________________________________________________
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
A declaration of financial position, for James Frank Osterbur, October 11, 1994
cash on hand and in bank (liquid assets approx $ 2300.00)
includes a gift received from Frank and Lucille Osterbur of ($1000.00)in the 94 year.
earned income in 1993 $4730.65
taxed income in 1993 $2380.65
tax still owed for 1993 $150.00
social security tax paid 1993 $668.42
included in income is a gift from Frank and Lucille Osterbur from 1993, in the amount of $2000.00
currently working for room and board
possessions include
1 1985 S-10 pickup roughly $2500.00
1 25 year old bicycle
1 office desk and chair purchased 20 yr ago for $300.00
1 1960's vintage boat, rebuilt and retitled as 1994 (homemade conversion) roughly $2000.00
less than $500.00 (new price) hand tools and parts
1 homemade timbersaw, total monetary investment roughly $500.00
1 electric hydraulic scaffolding, homemade, total monetary investment roughly $500.00
1 gas forklift, 1950's machine remade into forklift, total monetary investment $300.00
1 homemade go-cart frame, total monetary investment roughly $40.00
each of these items represent serious liability risk, if put for sale, also my dad owns a part interest in the timbersaw, forklift, and scaffolding.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
RE; OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT: William K. Suter
The papers sent to the supreme court, SIMPLY AND CLEARLY , "DECLARING A DIRECT APPEAL, UNDER OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION", in NO WAY suggest a writ of certiorari!
" The papers are not a petition for review.
This legal public action IS A DEMAND, to investigate corrupt practice and policy, as has been found within the judicial system and which has contaminated the medical MONOPOLY over the public (a true matter of commerce).
The trials/appeals listed DO NOT seek review of specific confrontation, aside from necessary examination to ascertain these , as "the evidence which convicts"!
The appeal is DISTINCTLY DEFENDED, page 6, "This appeal legitimately defined within the third article of the United States Constitution."
This appeal is DISTINCTLY DEFINED, page 8-9, "Establish,
A legal Redress of Grievances, according to the first Amendment
Proper judicial regard for Inalienable Rights......WITH PENALTIES
THE COMMERCE, MONOPOLY, AND DISCRIMINATION charges, as identified regarding the medical industry.
Each of the defendants listed has earned the RIGHT.
The United States of America IS the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and its PEOPLE.
The integrity of the Officials hired to do the work IS subject to a legal determination, when the sovereignty and righteousness of the United States of America is being corrupted.
The State of Illinois IS the supervisor of its courts, BEING RESPONSIBLE, for their actions, and its consequences.
Covenant Medical Center, Urbana IL, initiated and identified the problem WAS given every opportunity to reconsider and refused. It is only justice, that they be allowed, to represent the medical industry, as they are fully acquainted with every detail.
The Judges of the U.S.C.A. as listed, were given the IMPORTANT JOB, and were sworn to uphold, the integrity of the court as DEFINED by the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights and Authority of its PEOPLE.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RE; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
OSTERBUR
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
et al
DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT, Thomas F. Strubbe
The documents returned RE; 94-1943 ARE indeed a DIRECT APPEAL to the U.S. Supreme Court, NOT a writ of Certiorari.
The Judges whose names appear upon each packet ARE DEFENDANT, WITHIN that legal action, and these returned packets are their notice (look at the list on the appeal).
Their names appear because they are the final defense within a legitimate and REASONABLE appeal and they DID FAIL completely, to do their job.
This direct appeal then directs the U. S. Government to examine the practices and polices and adhere to the third article of the U. S. Constitution, section 1 "The judges of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR......".
Disciplinary action or dismissal is therefore the call, page 7, "show me, the frivolous nature of these appeals and identify, the courts discretion, as LEGAL procedure, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION".
I, will again issue the statement: "Fraud is a criminal term, without notice or opportunity to defend, I was forced to turn over private property." "Medical extortion, exists when a trauma patient IS NOT EQUAL, to a Corporate entity, within the Judicial system.
TO: Clerk of the Court, William K. Suter
RE: OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES et. al. DEFENDANTS
REFERENCE TO LETTER OCT 13, 1994
This date 10/27/94
The Definition of Direct Appeal from section 1253, title 28 "any party may appeal to the supreme court......." The appeal in question DISTINCTLY falls within the Anti-Trust laws of title 15 commerce and Trade
The Constitutionality of a state law, which directly caused me injury, and is a violation of legal rights, and COULD do so again, and DOES injure any other trauma patient, in the same manner.
The Reality of denial of due process and equal protection : as was illegally witheld from me throughout these court actions.
The issue of Mandamus to the inferior court OR acceptance of jurisdiction by the supreme court IS DUE. The decision by the Appellate Court to fundamentally DENY BY BLATANT PREJUDICE, read the appeal, ESTABLISHES COLOR OF LAW and issues their (Judges) acceptance and inclusion within this suit.
From title 28 section 2101 supreme court (b) appealed from a decision of a "federal appellate court", in any civil action, suit or proceeding.
The appellate court could not be more clear in its decision , and is final, see appeal page 3.
The authorization of LAW is Constitutional in origin and fact, as related to this appeal, THE EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE.
READ THE APPEAL
UNDERSTAND; the dictionary meaning of Constitution QUOTE: ".... A charter of the government deriving its whole authority from the governed. the written instrument agreed upon by the people of the union (e.g. Constitution) or of a particular state, as the absolute RULE OF ACTION and decision for all departments (i.e. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all points covered by it, which must control...."
This legal public action DEMANDS the first amendment right: ".....for a redress of grievances...." to PROTECT THIS DEMOCRACY FROM CORRUPTION THROUGH DEMOCRATIC LEGAL ACTIONS.
THE RIGHT, THE DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, IS Due Process And Equal Protection and therefrom produces Jurisdiction of the people over MISUSE OF POWER , AND OBLIGATES THE COURT, to establish and protect this fundamental first amendment RIGHT AND LAW.
The LAW OF THE LAND DEMANDS a hearing and establishes my standing to bring suit ARTICULATED AS: The declaration of independence"........That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, to alter or to abolish it......laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......"
CORRUPTION, MUST BE FOUGHT, Corruption exists within the court, the people MUST...........SECURE, the Blessings of LIBERTY, to ourselves and our posterity........"
ACCEPT THIS: The courtroom is NOT a Monarchy. The Judge is NOT a ruler. The COURT IS where PEOPLE ESTABLISH RIGHT.
THE DEFINITION OF OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION; is identified within Judicial canon 3 : Constitutional OBLIGATIONS Judicial Canon 22: Review and Judicial Canon 34: A summary of Judicial Obligation.
These Canons fall DISTINCTLY within a proper understanding of Judicial Canon 2: The public interest "Courts exist to promote JUSTICE, and thus serve the public interest...........for the litigants."
I HAVE NOW written to you, specifically, William K. Suter twice, regarding your deliberate and willful misrepresentation of the facts submitted within this DIRECT APPEAL. Your intentional disregard for the Constitutional Right and Relief, which the LAW allows to each citizen, presents a barrier, fundamentally defined as " Obstruction of Justice". You are hereby instructed to successfully administer the duties of the Clerk. ACCEPT THE APPEAL, as written, OR identify problems which arise in connection with a direct Constitutional Appeal` to the supreme court , arising under the Obligation of DUTY, to SUPPORT, OBSERVE, AND APPLY, the fundamental limitations and guarantees of the Constitution of the United States.
Be it noted neither a copy of the Rules or sample petition has been sent to me either time and failure to correct your attitude or sloppiness is inexcusable.
The statement is further made and clarified YOU are NOT the judge, your JOB IS to fulfill the purpose of the LAW, to grant EACH CITIZEN, the OPPORTUNITY, to be heard in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time.
Rule 13, requiring a full financial declaration was met and enclosed with my initial filing and DOES contain the seal of your office. Suggestions that this Rule, the ONLY rule you describe, was not followed, is PURE CONJECTURE.
DO, establish MY RIGHT, or efforts will be made seeking REVIEW of your work, and your JOB.
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, title 28 section 2072 (b) "such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right....."
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
I, JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR, do hereby certify, a true and correct copy of (the letter to the clerk, supreme court, dated 10/27/94) REGARDING the direct appeal to the supreme court Osterbur V. United States of America et al Defendants, as been delivered postage prepaid, first class, to the U. S. mail service, or hand delivered by me. on this date______________________
to the following locations
U.S. ATTORNEY 14 towne centre 2. E. Main st, Danville IL 61832
the GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS JIM EDGAR, SPRINGFIELD IL
THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, Champaign IL
Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey fifth floor, 30 Main st. Champaign IL 61820
for COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER, URBANA IL
and one mailing containing 3 packets (one for each judge ) to
U.S.C.A. 7TH CIRCUIT 219 S. DEARBORN CHICAGO IL 60604
ALL INFORMATION is hereby requested regarding supeona's etc.
concerning these matters
________________________________________________
TO THE PEOPLE
JUSTICE REQUIRES INVOLVEMENT, DO YOU DESIRE JUSTICE?
This is a fundamental exercise in DEMOCRACY
INTENT upon a fundamental change in DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY, FOR THE PEOPLE!
Upon being confronted directly , the Realities I, have found, greatly exceeded the amount of corruption expected within the Judicial system of the United States of America.
The Revelant Issue: HOW TO PERMANENTLY ESTABLISH JUSTICE?
The ONLY answer: To allow the people a JUDICIAL OPPORTUNITY, to, "throw the bum out", and "to change the LAW, within constitutional limits, that shows itself to be corrupt or lacking, by VOTE upon the LAW itself." One man , One woman ONE VOTE! Per each issue that the people select, identify, and articulate through the media, for themselves.
This case OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al DEFENDANTS (see enclosed court papers).
Defines the problems and there are many, and seeks to establish, A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the first Amendment, of the Constitution of the United States, as written within the words of the Declaration of Independence: OUR HERITAGE!
I, personally believe the Court DOES recognize the issues involved, But is TOO CORRUPT, to remain within constitutional LAW!
Review of the Case will show, fundamental rights and guarantees of the Constitution WERE DENIED! As well as, the Court has NO LEGAL DEFENSE, for the poverty of their actions.
At this time the Clerk of the Supreme Court, having been fully forewarned, and failing to support his erroneous conclusions or identify mine, stands accused by me, of obstruction of Justice, and Grand Theft, of Constitutional Judicial rights, of a citizen, like any other. The blockade, used by William K. Suter, warrants the charge; HE has erected and misused his position to stand as Judge and Jury, over this case (his position is unsupported), A POSITION OF AUTHORITY HE DOES NOT HOLD!
What can you do? Conversation IS , a powerful tool, USE IT!
ITEM #30SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON, DC 20543
WILLIAM K. SUTER AREA CODE 202
CLERK OF THE COURT 479-3011
October 13, 1994
James F. Osterbur
2191 County Rd . 2500 E .
St . Joseph, IL 61873
RE: Osterbur v . United States
Petitioner: James F. Osterbur
The enclosed papers were received on October 13, 1994. These papers fail to comply with the Rules of this Court and are herewith returned.
You may seek review of a decision only by filing a timely petition for writ of certiorari. The papers you submitted are not construed to be a petition for writ of certiorari. Should you choose to file a petition for writ of certiorari, you must submit the petition within the 90 day time limit allowed under Rule 13 of the Rules of this Court. A Copy of the Rules of this Court and a sample petition for a writ of certiorari are enclosed.
In Forma Pauperis Department
~(202) 479-3019
ITEM #31-
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
REDRESS OF THE PEOPLE
(Primary document sent to the USSC)
THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
as represented by,
JAMES BOX 103 ROYAL, IL 61871
(will be changed for court purposes)
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A DIRECT APPEAL, A DISTINCT DEMAND, ESTABLISH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND SUBMIT TO ITS AUTHORITY, SPECIFICALLY THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO A LEGAL "REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES".
A DIRECT APPEAL, A DISTINCT DEMAND, ESTABLISH THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY "JUDGES, BOTH OF THE SUPREME AND INFERIOR COURTS, SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR...." (UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, BY THE PUBLIC'S STANDARD, SHALL RESULT IN DISMISSAL) A PUBLIC RIGHT AND AUTHORITY!
A DIRECT APPEAL, A DISTINCT DEMAND, ESTABLISH THE INALIENABLE RIGHT, TO BE EQUAL TO THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY. SOLIDIFY OUR RIGHT TO CONTEST A BILL, AFTER TREATMENT, IN A COURTROOM IF NECESSARY. DIGNIFY OUR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO BE SUFFICIENT IN OURSELVES, TO ESTABLISH PAYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, ANYTHING LESS IS A HOSTAGE SITUATION, OR AN EXTORTION. (NO ONE CHOOSES EMERGENCY)
A POLITICAL RIGHT IS: to suggest alternate methods by which society may function, BY VOTE.
A LEGAL RIGHT IS: The Dignity, and the HONOR, and the METHOD to insure EQUALITY, irregardless of current practice or law. EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS HONOR, until society takes it away illegally, this case is built upon that illegal action or inaction, as is CLEARLY SHOWN throughout the judicial cases preceding this action.
JURISDICTION IS APPLIED AS: THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY "....ON SUCH PRINCIPLES, AND ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS!"
LEGAL STANDING: "THAT ALL MEN HAVE CERTAIN INHERENT RIGHTS": this case represents CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that have been illegally seized from the people; the right of redress, of an honest court, of a fair and honorable protection from the oppression of illness and emergency establishing the right to enjoy life and liberty through EQUALITY and from its meaning, FREEDOM!
LEGAL RIGHT: FREEDOM, exists ONLY among those who are willing to pay for it. The constitution Relies upon adherence to the intent, the people rely upon adherence to the words.
"LET THE WORDS BE TRUE"
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
FILED UNDER ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
CONTENTS
FORMAL APPEAL PG 1
CASE SUMMARY PG 2-8
ABSTRACT PG 8-19
BRIEF PG 19-22
MEMORANDUM PG 22-23
MEDIA RELEASE PG 23-30
CASE SUMMARY
This case selects the courtroom realities of a citizen to represent the Realities facing the people, of this Nation. Given the degree of ABUSE, "Treasonable conduct", and constitutional cancer, associated with one person's trip through the court system and the medical industry. It IS DEMANDED the inalienable RIGHT, of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States be IMPLEMENTED, as written, and more importantly, AS INTENDED!
The words which apply...."A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." Established before the Nation to assert, identify, correct, and solidify the Reality of our inheritance, OUR CONTRACT, TO DIE IF NECESSARY, to protect the meaning and the true intent of the Constitution, its preamble, and the Bill of Rights!
The United States Government is hereby charged with FAILURE to conform the Judiciary to the Constitution, as applied to the cases hereby presented, OR to its INTENT, with regard to: "A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" and as otherwise noted throughout the trials and appeals listed, and as may be added through class action.
The DEMAND: Establish the RIGHT, to a redress of grievances by formally, DELIBERATELY, erecting the means and methods necessary to implement this first amendment RIGHT! Within this case, and each additional case as shall surely follow.
The Medical Industry IS confronted with the charge: THIS IS NOT FREE ENTERPRISE! And therefore cannot be treated as such.
The DEMAND: Control the monopoly, separate FAIR billing from extortion, and recognize Reality and its methods: HONOR, and the FAIR EXCHANGE, of a percentage of wealth!
The State of Illinois is charged with Failure to adequately oversee their Judicial branch, and Failure to contend for the citizen, NOT against!
The DEMAND: Establish Equality and honor, through respect. Return the ILL supreme court to, OF THE PEOPLE (the Most Blatant example of tyranny: the rules of the court demand the word PRAYER be used in addressing the court; its meaning, to speak to god, CLEARLY NOT OF THE PEOPLE). Return the appeals to FOR THE PEOPLE, rules of procedure are NOT justice, they are simply excuses for non-involvement, and become corruption. Establish the circuit court as, BY THE PEOPLE, we are due respect no matter what our individual station might be, a fair hearing and REASONABLE justice ARE DUE the citizen.
The federal court prefers: DO NOT exercise your constitutional rights, They might change things! THIS IS a personal, NOT a judicial concept.
The Federal appeals Court Justices cannot use ignorance as an excuse, they deliberately refused to obey constitutional mandate, and issued statements intended to deny without cause, a citizens constitutional right. A Statement that can only be understood as, "LAUGHING AT THE LAW, AND RIDICULING THE PETITIONER"!
The DEMAND: remove them, without pension, UNLESS verification exists their past deserves another chance, in which case, they deserve to be demoted to a lower court.
I, JAMES F. OSTERBUR, DO stand as a victim of Unconstitutional, Deliberate, Judicial treason. My life, My Values, My Freedoms are at the Foundation of these controversies and I, have been attacked, WITHOUT CAUSE! The binding force of this argument enlarges from an illegal abuse of courtroom procedures (the failure to adhere to FUNDAMENTAL, Due Process of Law), the right to be informed of all charges prior to a courtroom proceeding, the undeniable right of the fourteenth amendment, to equal protection under the law, and ends upon Article 3, section 1 of the Constitution ....."the judges, both of the supreme and inferior court, shall hold their offices during good behavior...."
It is hereby demanded, the purpose and the definition of these words, THIS REDRESS, be given meaning according to the intent and written obligation of the Constitution of the United States, A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND THOSE HIRED. The obligation IS clear, the words are binding, and the RIGHT to remove is authorized. ESTABLISH THIS LEGAL REDRESS, INFORM THE PUBLIC, AND SUBMIT TO THEIR AUTHORITY!
These words, this case, DOES NOT represent a single circumstance, but are the accumulation of distinct contempt, unwarranted and destructive, by/as seen in, the select cases set forth. The state of Illinois being inquired upon for help, chose to be the aggressor (refusing its DUTY) and becomes implicated by the RIGHT of its jurisdiction over the court system of the State of Illinois (the state represents all its citizens, and therefrom gets its jurisdiction). Any attempt to suggest, the people are unprotected from judicial corruption (through the constitution) OR should the court FAIL TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, (STATE OR FEDERAL), IS TREASON! Any attempt to suggest an answer shall be less than: (the BILL OF RIGHTS) to know, "WHICH RIGHTS DO PERTAIN TO THEM AND THEIR POSTERITY, AS THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT", is a destruction of liberty and a plundering of freedom! The State IS an overseer assigned through the office of the attorney general and its own Constitution, to ADHERE to all constitutional (state and Federal) DIRECT DEMANDS, that apply to specific citizen guards against despotism.
The cases represented CLEARLY establish: the courtroom has a Ruler, NOT a judge, those hired to guard the people FAIL, the lack of money prejudices and predetermines the outcome, the lack of a legal education REMOVES the sovereign Right, to REALISTICALLY protect yourself, your family, or your property. These things transform legal rights to the Reality of, "will they (the judiciary) grant constitutional truths, or let the " wolves" devour, in a game (if you don't have every punctuation mark, every specialized word or phrase, every "grain of sand" neatly in place, you the litigant may simply be discarded) only a few people are allowed to play." (Only lawyers, and those with excess money). This is far closer to the reality, of this day, (in my own cases it didn't matter even if everything was neatly in place) than fundamental justice. TRUTH expects and constitutional GUARANTEES are described as: EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! WHERE IS IT, if it can't be found, then employees MUST BE REPLACED, and RESPECT, REBORN!
THE SIMPLE AND PLAIN:
From the Illinois Preamble to the Constitution, Supreme law, Constitution, section 1, subsection 3, Quote "The Constitution is the Supreme law, and every citizen is bound to obey it, and every court is bound to enforce its provisions, leaving court NO discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision according to his judgement as to its wisdom or whether public good will be subserved by disregarding People V. Sholem 1920, 294 ILL
204, 128 N.E. 377.
A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The initiating action case 92-S-2991; can judgement be issued upon a charge NEVER MADE, or formally implied? And therefrom is it illegal to apply a criminal charge, FRAUD, to a defendant who has NEVER been charged. Is this beyond the scope or intent of constitutional Due Process? Does the authority who removes himself from the bench to become the prosecutor and issue this charge, remove himself from the scope and intent of constitutionally applied authority? Rather, as seen within the protection of the sixth amendment, the fifth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment, as well as the Bill of Rights, the charge issued (NOTICED), by definition is a criminal charge and the Right of the defendant is completely clear.
The Initiating action, case 4-93-0441; Judgement as given, is without doubt, a CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBVERSION of the intent of Constitutional law, A complete FAILURE of the preamble citations, and their honest intent defined by, the constitution of the state of Ill, and a Fundamental attack upon the rights of those dependant upon a FAIR JUDICIARY. This then, to reduce the court to "either the citizen or the judge" are the actions of the state of Ill appellate judges.
The state of Ill, FAILS the test, as seen in the Judicial Inquiry board Nov 23, 1993, to support and defend the citizen through the constitution, THIS LITERALLY IS THEIR JOB!
The initiating action case 76128 of the Supreme court of Ill. Examined as Reliance upon Judicial Canon 2. The public interest, quote, "courts exist to promote justice, and thus serve the public interest. Their administration should be speedy and careful. Every ......the courts for the litigants. Judicial canon 3. Constitutional Obligations, quote, "it is the duty of all judges in the U. S. to support the federal constitution and that of the state whose laws they administer; in so doing, they should fearlessly observe and apply fundamental limitations and guarantees.
From the supreme court of Ill, was asked, (case 4-93-0441) SHOW ME THE LAW, and defend the judicial supposition that a procedural rule is greater than LAW OR JUSTICE OR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES. Their reply, "Denied", can only be interpreted as, "the fundamental rights of an individual citizen are beneath our comment, AND is devoid of consequence to the court. Reality therefore dictates intervention in matters of justice; Must be PAID FOR or will be discarded". Further, the court was asked, examine the documents and establish proof, reasonable compliance was NOT made! The court FAILED, according to judicial canon 22. Review: quote, "In order that a litigant may secure the full benefit of the right of review accorded to him BY LAW, a trial judge should scrupulously grant to the defeated party opportunity to present the questions arising upon the trial exactly as they arose, were presented, and decided, by full and fair bill of exceptions or otherwise; any failure in this regard on the part of the judge is peculiarly worthy of condemnation because the wrong done may be irremediable. I, a litigant, received ABUSE NOT JUSTICE, during trial, a MOCKERY OF JUSTICE during appeals, and NO RESPECT for constitutional decree or inalienable rights from the supreme court, not even an attempt.
These things brought suit to Federal district court case 94-2001: According to the "ex parte young" exception which allows federal court to hear suits against state officials if, the suit seeks to force them to conform their conduct to federal law. Federal Jurisdiction chapter 2:12 page 89, "other limitations of judicial review".
In 94-2001, the Fundamental constitutional question begins: Shall the power of the Judiciary OR Authority of the people preside; (the judiciary has already been shown as ruler rather than judge in the lower court cases, the state official board of Inquiry has NO authority, and the Rule, has replaced both law and justice.)
So begins the primary expression: WE THE PEOPLE, establish the power and authority of government! The Constitution and Bill of Rights, DO establish the Directive from/for the people, which is: "Use these WORDS, to conform government to the people, NOT people to the government!"
Federal court refers to these issues as FRIVOLOUS.
The Fundamental principles of government, THE REALITY OF LAW, then, COULD BE/MUST BE, CHOSEN OR REARRANGED, OR REVIEWED, BY VOTE, NOT merely legislated. Citations listed throughout 94-2001 and this case substantiate the call AND THE RIGHT, to return to: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and clearly defines the need/right to make an informed vote, within constitutional guidelines, ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES/LAWS themselves, AS THIS IS TRUE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, AND THE HONEST INTENT OF THOSE WHO DIED FOR THIS RIGHT and gave us the first amendment right TO, A redress of grievances! FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE.
EVALUATION BEGINS UPON the charge of collusion, between the government and the medical industry; the second series of facts, realities, and betrayal. Be it recognized the purpose of the words IS, to improve not destroy!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO state a situation of ABUSE, OPPRESSION, and accusations of a libelous nature, enjoined by the medical society upon me, produced the cause and serious injuries sustained by me, and initiated fundamental LEGALIZED extortion by reason of NO possibility to challenge, even through the court system. This result forms the basic allegiance between medicine and government, against the inalienable rights of citizenship, freedom of the press, the guarantee of "freedom of religion", and the principles upon which liberty and freedom reside.
The right of citizenship granted: by the Bill of Rights section 15, "That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." JUSTICE with regard to medical billing demands the opportunity to contest a bill, (THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE), yet the court says, IN A DISTINCT MATTER OF COMMERCE, "there is no law: even though any other business dealing demands a fair appraisal be made, and in section 11 of the bill of rights; that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred." How can JUSTICE say to me, "pay anything they ask, you have NO Rights, these are exempt from common ethical/legal practices", OR from substantiating the right to bill (does a worker not have to EARN his salary)? How can the state of IL, say to me, go pay the doctor, and ask him/her if I can be ALLOWED to enter court,(section 2-622 IL code) where the judge must then be considered as "window dressing", since he has NO say, and NO authority, Is this Constitutional, or is this hypocrisy?
My own history became intertwined with medical Realities at an earlier time, and without doubt initiated the extremely poor treatment I received; that became the primary point of contention. The medical society IS found in contempt, within the concept, that they can understand and describe a/any human being within a simple word or phrase, is this reality. Yet these same people will admit no such word or phrase, arbitrarily applied to them, identifying their behavior or intellect exists, creating a separate environment. So it is that they would brand me and others, and did so without my consent, without public trial, without ANY UNDERSTANDING OR DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND.
Regarding any behavior seen as different, It IS my right, to proceed with christian forbearance, love, and Duty, to seek knowledge, to obtain understanding, and to grasp wisdom, with a direct regard for my CREATOR. Whether any other man/woman/or child may agree or not, SO LONG AS, I do not hurt anyone, even though I may suffer for it a little! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF FREEDOM!
This conflict as represented, is NOT, "do you agree": This conflict IS: can they LABEL, and thereby create deliberate harm, Without consent, without trial, without so much as listening for 5 minutes to the person, upon which the medical establishment impels their own brand of Religious Fervor upon! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF TYRANNY? WHAT THEN IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, and to whom does it belong!
The constitutional question becomes: Is the Bill of Rights, section 16, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not be force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other"! IS THIS, "a FAIR AND ACCURATE STATEMENT", respecting the freedom to choose, in this society, OR NOT? OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE, IS THE ISSUE HERE!
The Reality of choice does NOT initiate, right or wrong as a question or an answer, choice is the essence of freedom itself, within a minimal set of boundaries. The definition of ANY man or woman formally imprisons, and separates that person, and extends abuses; in doing so, the medical society has not only exceeded its authority, but entered into the grounds of slander, libelous and defamatory statements, oppression, and more.
The relief that was sought: Removal of blatant tyranny, the control of other people, through labeling. The use of any expression describing a person, by the medical profession, shall be limited to ACTUAL NEED, OR serious Criminal behaviors. Life through its various expressions shall be respected, even if not understood. This shall distinctly apply, to all forms of labeling, such as "genetic marking", and so on, BUT would not apply to serious cases of infectious, highly contagious, disease.
The medical society having defined my existence as dependant upon them, then established an identity they assigned to me, in their records, as less than capable of being human; within their own idolatries, this then may be seen, as the seeds of human ways and ignorance, which produce hatred, if allowed.
Medical files are not secret, access is granted in many ways, even so, ought not freedom and liberty be greater than opinion? Man and woman and child exist in life together, through "calm or storm", those who lose their grasp, or choose a different path, are still equal.
The relief that was sought: Remove the Monopoly from me/us. Medicine has achieved control through labeling, through billing, through control of public information, through control of the supply of doctors entering the medical profession by limited access to college, through control of products used, no competition (for the patient), through unconstitutional law, IL code of civil procedure 2-622, for example. The lack of an hourly rate (or part thereof) for services rendered, and no allowance for the outcome of a procedure or service or product. IN SIMPLE TERMS ESTABLISH FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT! (including billing)
THE ONLY FAIR METHOD, IS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME AND OR WEALTH. IS NOT YOUR BODY JUST AS IMPORTANT TO YOU, AS MINE TO ME, IF SO THEN BECAUSE EMERGENCY IS NOT A CHOICE, WE SHOULD ALL BEAR THE BURDEN EQUALLY. THE RICH MAN/WOMAN DOESN'T GO TO WAR, THE POOR MAN/WOMAN PAYS FOR WAR, THE GREATER PRICE IS HERE, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO! Like it or not war established this nation, and has been necessary, AS WELL AS, ABUSED!
FOR CLARITY, CONCERNING THE RECORD
ABSTRACT
THE QUESTION; Is this Equal protection under the law?
The legal battle began: A short time after my second experience, (I entered with heart pains) with the hospital, I know a heart attack occurred, being of much greater pain and intensity, yet the treatment I received initially caused me to choose death or disability, as preferable to the treatment I received, from them. Having survived that, the bill comes for the previous visit; being SLANDERED, ABUSED, AND REJECTED. The hospital says,"I have no rights, pay the bill".
The court is asked to intervene 92-S-1561: I ask the court make them hear my complaint, and if not as a citizen, make them listen according to the law, which they gave me access to, the social security act, as described. The judge refuses, acknowledging to their lawyer, between tapes, she doesn't understand the social security act, has no comprehension, and issues judgement anyway.
The controversies enlarge 92-C-1222: I ask the court, make it possible for all citizens to seek and obtain a FAIR AND ACCURATE billing, for services, as received, JUSTIFY THE BILL, (the statement did not reflect the poverty of the treatment); a situation that exists in all/every other business. The Judge says, I cannot, there is no law! Even a house has an inspector, to oversee the work, yet the hospital is free, where was the possibility to be heard, I LOOKED EVERYWHERE.
The controversy enlarges gen 4-93-0847: I ask the court, how can a state law section 2-622 REMOVE the Judiciary from its Constitutional Obligation, according to article 3, section 2.1 "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity....". The court replies, "failure to file coherent brief".
The controversy enlarges Ill 76450: I ask the court, Is this not tyranny, TO REDUCE JUSTICE to only a lawyer has rights, ONLY a doctor can decide to initiate justice, when in truth any JURY formed from the citizenry would have easily understood the brief in question? The court replies, DISMISSED!
The legal issues which have arisen each indicate an utter failure, with regard to Constitutional doctrine and EquaL (INALIENABLE) Rights, as well as, a usurpation of power by the state of Ill, through section 2-622; creating law destructive to the constitution of the United States of America, and in DIRECT contention with its most basic principle, access to a fair court.
The federal court in 94-2060: I ask the court, this medical profession has obtained a complete MONOPOLY over me/us, there is NO JUSTICE, this must change! The court replies, "Frivolous"!
The controversy continues in Federal Appeals court through 94-1943 and 94-1944: I ask, What happened to Our Constitutional GUARANTEE, what happened to "let the law decide, not the judge"? The court replies: "In a manner completely defiant to, a fair hearing", in a way which exposes an invasion from within, has occurred!
The United States Supreme Court is next: I ask, investigate corrupt practice and policies, and FIX IT! The clerk of the court replies: change to a writ of certiorari, a writ which allows the court to dismiss without cause! I REFUSE, being certain no justice will occur if an option is given. The clerk blockades becoming the judge himself, IS this legal OR is this an obstruction of justice?
The various governmental committees ASSIGNED TO WATCH OVER, the Justice system of the U.S., are sent a short letter and evidence to indicate the clerk has exceeded his authority. One senator replies, to say its none of his business.
THE ARGUMENT
These two series of courtroom controversy elicits the question: How many other people does this happen to, to what degree does money interfere with justice, what happened to HONOR?
The second question: Is a simple explanation insufficient, does the constitution belong only to the lawyer?
The third question: Irregardless of how the wording is portrayed, is there not sufficient evidence to indicate, Justice would demand a reasonable effort and hearing?
The fourth question: When did the words called the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, become so murky they could not be seen or understood?
The fifth question: Reality indicates no one controls the Justice department, it is assumed they can do it themselves, nothing could be farther from the truth; OR MONEY AND POWER, especially in the form of lawyers, others, CONTROLS THE COURT. Adherence to the law, and let the judge decide, are opposites.
The sixth question: Do lawyers contribute to justice and fair play, are lawyers the difference between right and wrong, what happened to SIMPLE TRUTH? The difference assigned to simple is: let honesty be sufficient, the law be FAIR, and let courage be the honor of a judge, NOT as opinion, RATHER as ears that hear, and a mind that works, WHEN combined with sufficient knowledge!
The seventh question: Do Judges, do rules of procedure, OR does constitutional adherence produce Social peace, freedom, liberty, and happiness?
The argument occurs how can a simple citizen declare such things to high officials in the government, what right exists for a citizen to expect some measure of the TRUE MEANING AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS to be carried out.
The answer is found in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: "....that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a {REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES}, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..."
The PRIVILEGE OF LIBERTY THROUGH JUSTICE, is identified AS constitutionally granted WITHIN the first Amendment: To the court I make my request within the clear and certain right/grant of that amendment, Establish a REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, that these things may be addressed by the people, and considered by the people, and fixed by the people, because there is no other way to remove and control corruption in government! That is the purpose of a redress, that is the method chosen by the constitution, and it does represent final control/authority to establish and confirm, "WE THE PEOPLE," shall determine our own destiny.
This request comes within the cause of; corruption, and denial of the peoples' authority, AND the Duty to defend the foundations of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice, and the honorable intent of Constitutional law (to firmly defend their RIGHTS, which do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government).
This then conforms action, to discipline, to words, that I/WE shall perform the duty of citizenship, written within the words: "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."
Let it be understood, it IS to defend constitutional rights, NOT alter, or abolish or supersede them, that this PEACEFUL DEMOCRATIC ACTION is established as a beginning to a more proper Reality, as was fought for/died for, to protect those of us who want freedom, AND are willing to pay for liberty.
WE are all capable of influencing OUR DESTINY, and together we hold the authority, BY VOTE, within our right.
The words of legal precedent establishing these implied powers, comes from
McCulloch V. Maryland (1819) "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are PLAINLY adapted to that end, which are NOT prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."
JUSTICE AND A FREE SOCIETY: The formation and comprehension of choice, describe freedom. It is Honor that recognizes and defends JUSTICE. We are a Society at peace, ONLY when liberty is understood as a duty, and the price DUTY requires, SIMPLY PUT IS:
LIFE responds to need, to mercy, and to injustice, so that each one may know FREEDOM.
To abandon any part of these things is to die a slow death, whether that abandonment is by an individual, community, Nation, or even the WORLD.
Fear of change, Rules many lives. It is true, change alters the social structure. The Reality is, Equality Justifies change, Inherent Rights signal the end, OR the beginning of liberty, respect forms the foundation of, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"!
Independence is an association between people and nation and RIGHT. The words contained herein are fundamental democracy, principals and realities of justice, liberty without violence, and freedom through duty. The questions, the answers, the examples exist as privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.
No excuses will be accepted regarding time limitations, as the U.S. Supreme Court is BOUND, under the rule of Original Jurisdiction, to hear this pleading. AND, I do claim the time necessary to write, to hear from, the involved judicial committees of the U.S. government. AND, Do claim my first amendment right, respecting my choice not to proceed during the Christian Lenten season, and its EASTER SUNDAY! AND to delay through the summer season for my own reasons, It is my RIGHT, just as our possession, our right IS: A VOTE OF CONSEQUENCE! RESPECT NOT FATIGUE!
THIS IS A NEW UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE, AND IT STANDS ALONE, WITH EVIDENCE!
THE CONSTITUTION IS: A CONTRACT, WHICH REQUIRES ITS CITIZENS TO DIE FOR THE WORDS!
DUE TO THE GRAVITY OF THESE WORDS, AND THEIR REALITIES, THEN THE GOVERNMENT SHALL LIVE BY THE WORDS, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! The obligation exists for fulfillment of the debt owed, by the officials of government, to the people. That debt being THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE CONSTITUTION, and the first amendment (in particular), AS WRITTEN.
RESOLUTION of these matters: " Establish the means, Identify the method, insure constitutional adherence, and secure the RIGHT of the American people to its Constitutional Guarantee; A peaceful Redress of Grievances, according to the first amendment, upon every issue they deem important!"
{BLATANT DISCRIMINATION; such as, the removal of freedom and equality, from those few over the age of sixty five, for the direct purpose, to control their behaviors through the requirements initiated by social security:"this is a denial of the right to be like "everyone else," and decide for themselves what will be," and IS A TYRANNY. WE ARE EQUAL AND FREE, OR WE ARE NOT, this is a "minor" redress issue compared to the rest, but a good place to start, "the next series"}.
Argument is mute, which suggests this is a political area, IT IS, a legal rights case, within and defined by, the constitution itself. This legal case is brought forth out of the courts themselves; and according to article 1, article 2, and article 3, the Judiciary IS SEPARATE.
The judiciary shall decide all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution....shall define treason, " a charge asserting constitutional hypocrisy, is a serious matter, involving the HEALTH of the nation."
ANY ATTEMPT BY THE COURT, TO OBSTRUCT OR DENOUNCE, THIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT: INITIATES THE RESPONSE, AN INVASION FROM WITHIN HAS OCCURRED, (an enemy is at the door). DO NOT belittle this legal action as personal or regarding men/women of the court, THIS LEGAL ACTION IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY ITSELF, FREEDOM, AND LIBERTY, UNDER THE LAW! (LAW SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE TRUE INTENT, THE WORDS OF RIGHT, FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND EQUALITY)!
Precedent Fenner V. Boykin 27 U.S. 240, 46 S. CT 492 (1926) "where it is necessary to prevent irreparable constitutional injury."
THE REMEDY, ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THIS REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, as the first, NOT the last!
1. the controversy: INALIENABLE RIGHTS
topic: The difference between fundamental constitutional rights and ACTUAL functioning realities, as initially defined by the following legal cases and the composite description of an American heritage under SIEGE.
At issue: The right to control; who gives it, who protects it, who defines social behavior and its punishment?
Primary target: IS " Bill of Rights, and Constitutional LITERACY" throughout the court system, and the judiciary (WE MUST TEACH THEM, WHAT HONOR IS)! AND an HONOR BOUND EMPLOYEE, to carry out his/her reasonable DUTY!
Primary objective: Judicial guarantees and acceptance of, "If you are a judge, 3 major Ethical failures and your OUT/ NO PENSION", FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR and its to JAIL. The legal question: where does the constitution grant immunity to a judge, it is NOT article 3, Nor section 2 of the Bill of Rights!
Point of interest: Social peace IS dependant upon Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, NOT upon the words called law, Rather Peace IS dependant upon the INTENT of those laws; BEING FAIR TO LIFE ITSELF! The legal question: The Preamble of the Constitution AGREES, YES OR NO? These words do not release the judge to his/her own discretion, rather conforms the actions of law, the words of law, and the intent of law, to HONOR, RESPECT, AND DISCIPLINE; Not punctuation, not rules of procedure first, not a legal education, BUT an Inalienable and Inherent Right.
Point of Contention: The Judiciary cannot self-regulate or be allowed to review itself, it has failed. Legal question: Does a president impeach himself, it is the same for a judge.
Factual Ramifications:
1a. The citizen must be heard, in a usable statistical format; to assess the credible abilities of a judge, and thereby formulate the need for Public Ethical Review, and or promotion. Legal question: the people have a right? yes or no!
1b. The Judiciary shall be ADEQUATE to the task, the assumption that a court proceeding is fair: cannot be made when conducted by a judge, ILLITERATE, to the realities associated with specific knowledge or events, OR a Jury ILLITERATE to the realities associated with specific knowledge or events, that are pertinent to a FAIR DECISION! Reality will acknowledge, reliable witnesses are expensive and rare, some degree of expertise must be, a burden upon the system of justice to provide. Legal question: An informed decision requires sufficient understanding? yes or no!
1c. The functioning courtroom requires change: a Jury must operate within its MOST RELIABLE ABILITIES. These are; separating each trial, into its factual realities (a decision is made upon each specific issue raised, as yes or no. At the summation of courtroom proceedings a detailed formal brief, by the jury, contains Each Decision, an honorable evaluation of the importance of each decision: The juries final determination as an integral duty, and the PROBABILITY OF ERROR and if needed, formal request for special considerations on appeal). Legal question: Does this impede justice OR is this not, "the right to be informed of the nature and the cause"?
1d. Equal Justice means equal time/equal money! Every trial of importance (possible jail term of more than 90 days), deserves the same treatment. The amount of money/time spent must be the same for both sides. TO BE FAIR, the average cost and time for a specific type of trial must be calculated nationwide, then that amount of time/money shall be spent (BOTH SIDES). Anything beyond 25% of this total WILL NOT BE ALLOWED! Legal question: Is Justice for sale? Equality as seen in all civil rights cases and equal protection as defined in Education laws, strongly indicates protection, requires intervention and disciplinary measures!
{ The utter abuse of courtroom proceeding as seen in the O.J.SIMPSON case should never be allowed again. If a charge is made such as an entire police force or an individual has done something WRONG, then this case should stop and the police force or the individual charged and tried, before the simpson trial could be resumed, THE REALITY HERE "EVERYONE IS MAKING MONEY, PLAY THE GAME"! JUSTICE IS NOT A GAME!}
1e. An appeals process would be, much better served IF a print or video presentation were broadcast/produced, of agreed upon content, and distributed to the public. Constitutional questions, imprisonment, deserves as much involvement as possible. Legal question: The most effective guard against oppression, by law or by judge, IS Public involvement?
1f. It is VERY WRONG, to make an example of anyone! It is WRONG to make jail a place of leisure or a reward (college education). Let the inmates teach each other, AND let them earn the right to greater education by specific behaviors. Let the inmate work at jobs of value that might not be economical otherwise, such as salvaging old buildings, repairing old appliances or furniture, recycling and reforestation, etc. As is common to this nation, the inmate should EARN the right to better, above a minimum standard, situations by reasonable work and social ethics.
1g. IT IS WRONG, to allow dangerous individuals back into society, the RIGHT of the majority IS PEACE, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT. The reward is, punishment for bad behavior, NOT a reduction in time for good behavior. The Inmates themselves KNOW, who is dangerous and who is not, and to a large extent so do the guards. A Vote, by secret ballot will/would revoke probation and send a dangerous person away, elsewhere, a different prison. This Vote of the inmates themselves Will lengthen or shorten EVERY INMATES' SENTENCE, DEPENDENT UPON: Whether the people they let out do well, or hurt someone else!
The question develops, what is the right to lengthen a sentence? The answer is criminal activity has no measure of social harm, But society must pay additionally for every repeat offender, for every infraction. Justice would grant exclusion to the first time offender, but an additional percentage of time, for every repeat criminal, per return. BUT, society must ensure the Freed man/woman HAS a reasonable opportunity and some support. Legal question: The bill of rights section 3, " Instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people....." allows the right to reform, and demands a fair opportunity?
1h. EQUAL PENALTIES, the reality is simple, an accident is an accident, it is a mistake, a price associated with societies decisions about itself, NOT a crime. "Social security" is the appropriate avenue for relief, for the victim, personal relief for the family is life insurance (mandatory with any young dependant, a cost associated with social security, but through private insurance).
A crime does cost society, and society has a distinct right to re-imbursement, from the person not the family.
An accident associated with "flawed behavior", should have a calculable cost. The public must vote on and accept those punishments and their well-defined limitations before they become effective, SUCH AS the penalties for drunk driving? etc.
All people, find JUSTICE TO BE FAIR, as men/women can make it, when we are forewarned, when the punishment is known and agreed upon beforehand, BY SOCIETY, BUT WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, and when the judicial officers are of good character, (It is necessary to make allowances for juveniles, whose conduct was ignorance due to youth)! In one form or another the bill, is sent to the taxpayer for all courtroom proceedings. It is then Fair, for the public, to establish limits, for themselves. Legal question: Does not amendment 9, "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." speak directly to this, and defend the statement; Reality not Idolatry (excessive greed), is the foundation upon which the constitution depends.
1i. Changes have occurred in society making the individual vote, Educated as desired, a possibility which extends to the presidential election, and beyond, Abandon the electoral college! Legal question: Is this NOT the true intent of the constitution and Bill of Rights, to give to the people governmental authority, through one person, one vote? yes or no?
2. The CONTROVERSY: EQUALITY
Topic: To establish reality as; " A medical emergency is an invasion of the citizen, and as such the description of HOSTAGE applies. The degree of violence being fought with, IS: life, health, and future prosperity. The relationship to self-defense, OR self-imposed, personally accepted debt, is minimal if at all; the common denominator, everyone is at risk!
Do the words of the Declaration of Independence, "...we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Conform duty, to responsibility, to administer authority over such entities as the medical industry, which DO have immediate and dramatic control to remove and deprive any citizen, of their property, without legal consent (the signing of a contract under physical/mental DURESS), nor bound by reasonable law, if any law at all. Is this not a taking; of security, blessings, property, and privileges of that hostage?
Because the situation exists that medicine requires money the Ethical question: would not a maximum percentage of income apportioned to property, as payment, per person, or with children, per family, become "MY FAIR SHARE"! Does a percentage based upon the medical problem represent, EQUAL PROTECTION? In this way the rich and the poor are affected in similar ways, sickness or accident is not a chosen freewill debt, how it affects the citizen should be the same for everyone, even here the poor will still suffer worse, than the rich. Those with no money will do community service.
Primary target: The functioning reality of " the business of medicine ". The emergency patient, those at risk of life and limb and health, establish a paramount NEED for assistance, beyond a citizens duty, "to do for yourself". This service, this need, this reality DICTATES: There is NO choice, PAY whatever, "they demand"! Failure to do so, can cripple or kill in many cases! Therefore an HONEST Evaluation of the term, "Business"; meaning each party has the clear and definite ability, and opportunity to walk away, UNHARMED, simply doesn't exist! This is a one-sided agreement where risk, associated with life and limb, prejudice the outcome, and FEAR produces acceptance, irregardless of the cost. A situation akin to extortion!
Primary Objective: To eliminate the concept of "business", from the realm of medicine. To establish Equality, among rich and poor. To define and implement FAIR treatment, including the bill!
The conceptual reality expected to solidify, "a FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" IS: Breaking up OR controlling, the MONOPOLY that medicine has achieved over the patient, as described within these series of cases, and possibly many others! Legal question: True or False; The redress of grievances, amendment 1, allows the orderly resolution of abuses, usurpations and despotism, as can be compiled among the people, and subjects their finding (by vote), to the foundations which form our most valuable laws and principles!
Point of Interest: The doctor/hospital IS merely the final link, in a VERY LONG LINE of people that contribute and describe the realities of medicine such as; The taxpayer who paid for the schooling, built the buildings, provided the loans, produced the tools, supplied the needs, cleaned the areas, feed and clothed each one, became the experiment, and died from the errors, WITHOUT EXCESS CHARGES!
The Reality of Medicine, It is the rivers of TEARS, that produced the results, the tears of those in desperate NEED, and the tears of those left behind, and those left to deal with the poverty of a bad solution. NO amount of Money, can fix/replace a broken body, the solution must be "what can honestly be done", THE NEED IS REAL!
Legal question: True or False; To be secure, to enjoy the freedom and independence, to obtain and benefit as happiness and safety allow, "a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." section 3, Bill of Rights!
Point of Contention: The freedoms allowed under the Constitution DO NOT extend to situations which can so easily deprive and compel large portions of the population to "in effect" become slaves to the medical industry; such is the extent of billing ABUSE, common today! The rights of the citizenry to provide/produce restraint, having clearly, sufficient common interest, is not only reasonable, but a consequence of government according to the Bill of Rights, section 3, ...."instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people..." Legal question: The actions which challenge the concept of commerce, as applied to the medical industry, divide the question as commerce (subject to every aspect of the law regarding monopolies) OR a service/RESOURCE (subject to every aspect of governmental intervention), the peoples' choice!
Precedents include: German Alliance Insurance Co V. Lewis (1914) 233 U.S. 389 Justice Mckenna
The business of Insurance so far affects the public welfare as to invoke and require governmental regulation. A conception so general cannot be without cause. The universal sense of a people cannot be accidental;......the companies have been said to be the mere machinery....practically controlling constancy which the applicant for insurance is powerless to oppose and which therefore, has led to the assertion that the business of insurance is of a monopolistic character and "it is ILLUSIONARY to speak of a liberty of contract".......brings all under the
same governmental power....!
Munn V. Illinois 94 U.S. 113, 24 L.ED 77
Chief Justice Waite: .......private property "affected with the public interest, it ceases to be private only"....accepted without objection as an essential in the law of property ever since.....and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created.....may be a "VIRTUAL" MONOPOLY......If they did not wish to submit themselves to such interference they should not have clothed the public with an interest in their concerns.
The Bill of Rights is to be considered, Democracies' INTENT. The preamble of the constitution is to be considered as pre-eminent to all other constitutional documents. Amendment 13 may be considered as a precedent, "to remove the accepted doctrine of the day because of the clear abuse of its citizens, therefore its fair." Amendment 10, "The powers.... are reserved.....to the people".
Factual Ramifications: Consequent to the change from a business to a resource, the issue of ownership arises. The function of society IS: to produce opportunity, NOT control. The method is to allow each separate division to be placed up for BIDS, within a hospital (any location providing more than one nurse, an one doctor). Someone supplies the building and its structural maintenance for a defined period (10 years). Someone supplies the medicines for a defined period (1 year), and so on.
The realities associated with doctor/nurse/ professional staff, may be structured in the same way as other workers, A BID, to take care of a specific shift, for a year at a time or so. Qualified professionals WILL be granted access to the facilities, BUT they will pay the holders of the bid, a set fee, DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC for usage, per patient. IT IS UP TO THE PUBLIC TO SELECT OR REJECT, who shall receive the Bid, and define its limits, and its penalties, and CHOOSE what is in their best interest. Legal question: True or False; The foundation of free enterprise exists in greater measure by this method, than it does currently: CERTAINLY, it does for the public citizen/patient. The functional difference is: "The public shall inherit, MUCH GREATER CONTROL"! A simple law will establish the boundary.
2a. In the reality of life, it has become NECESSARY to define, "the miracle of living", as opposed to, "the reality of NATURES' CHOICE". It is a true saying, "someone has to pay". It is also a true saying, "the nation carries an IMMENSE DEBT"!
WE, as a society, one person one vote, MUST CHOOSE, "this/their condition, WE will not pay for"! REMEMBERING, whatsoever is decided, could befall YOU/ME or YOURS/MINE!
These words reflect REALITY, NOT judgement. Let the words which decide be completely clear; NATURE, the possibility of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, has disappeared, and desolation and death await. Legal Statement: The Jurisdiction of man is gone, upon the day nature/the natural process, "accomplishes the work called desolation (to be defined by vote)", irregardless of some minimum morality, ETHICALLY, it is time to go!
2b. WE, as a WORLD, are witness to the development of human intervention in the biological processes. The media in particular, call this "a brave new world". Yet the greatest possibility IS BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, from many avenues, and in many ways, of a type and kind, BEYOND ALL DESCRIPTION, EVEN EXTREME COULD BE INSUFFICIENT! Not by men/women but experiments OUT OF CONTROL! LET THEM PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT IT IS NOT SO!
We, as a world, deserve the opportunity to decide, "will men/women be allowed to proceed", in the ways that cast nature aside. By the methods, beyond any man/womans' or group of men/womens' control, or as a result of their control WE, AS A WORLD, ARE AT RISK!
LEGAL STATEMENT: The power to levy war, conclude peace......belongs to the nation, and therefore to its people!
LEGAL REALITY: WHO CAN BRING NATURE BACK, IF EVEN A SINGLE CRITICAL LINK IS DESTROYED! Do not surmise every link is known, they are NOT! It can be seen, Disease itself IS a critical link in survival, and the balance of nature. Disease is the guard or the army, that defends the genetic foundation of LIFE. Those things which alter the critical structure of species development, are sought out and eliminated through disease, being FORCED, not to reproduce! Disease also keeps a variety of specimens available of the same basic type, to insure and protect and establish, there is NO "perfect specimen". A change in micro-organisms can attack any, BUT NOT ALL, insuring the species itself shall survive. Disease also controls population explosions, insuring the survival of alternate species, and the environment itself.
These things and more, ARE HARSH REALITIES, BUT contrary to the popular LIE, (man/woman was mutated into existence). Disease keeps mutation from destroying man/woman!
LOVE, IS the single reality that allows freedom to exist, even when the consequence will be serious, the demand to choose extends to the reality of the decision, and its reward or failure; this is truth AND consequence!
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
REDRESS FOR THE PEOPLE
PETITIONER: THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
as represented by: JAMES BOX 103 ROYAL, IL 61871
(will include the name, at court time.)
V
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PETITION FOR 1ST AMENDMENT: REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
BRIEF
A DIRECT APPEAL, is made under ORIGINAL (OBLIGATORY) JURISDICTION, to the United States Supreme Court.
This APPEAL is established within the first amendment of the federal Constitution: ......"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a Redress of Grievances."
This APPEAL initiates within the Courtroom, and involves: OPPRESSION (the loss of inalienable rights).
TYRANNY (the loss of respect for Justice, BY THE JUDGE)
Constitutional SUPREMACY (state and Judicial corruptions)
Medical MONOPOLY (medicine is NOT free enterprise)
OPPORTUNITY is hereby requested for inclusion of, Public Participation, in the form of a class action suit; Even though, the Constitution and judicial branch claim, "that a citizen may come to the seat of his government and conduct his business, and be heard, (the fourteenth amendment).
These issues and this evidence produce sufficient cause in the form of Constitutional deprivation, (WITHOUT DOUBT), to establish legal cause and procedure. HOWEVER, the Constitution is an instrument of the people, and THEY ARE ITS PROTECTOR! The Court is relied upon to investigate; to assure itself/me a directly involved public citizen/and the public at large, that this is at best an isolated case, and IF NOT, then "cleaning" is in order!
This Redress of Grievances requested, develops within the certain knowledge that the courtroom controversies (evidence/record), were handled within a "common citizens outcry for justice". That the average citizen would have done no better, and consequently the average citizen would have received no better result.
This fundamentally applies the principle of, ..."the right of the people peaceable to assemble and to petition....". It is the lack of evidence, the financial costs, stress, and an insufficient opportunity to be heard, that forces SUFFRAGE (the exercise of a right) of the citizenry; to wait until a suitable instrument is found. A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES! And this record of oppression, is used to initiate public participation, and the opportunity to develop literal, WE the People, AUTHORITY!
Within the evidence presented: An oppression will be found as; "failure of the court to provide DUE PROCESS~, the right to be informed, the taking of a property without opportunity to contest, a mock trial, AND Judicial corruption, all exist within documents associated with federal appeals case 94-1943. FURTHER, denial by procedural infraction, of inalienable and inherent rights granted by the Constitution, and enumerated by the fourteenth amendment, ARE DISTINCTLY ILLEGAL! AND WERE USED BY THE COURT, FLAGRANTLY, WITH INTENT TO SUBVERT JUSTICE!
Within the evidence presented: A tyranny plainly exists within federal appeals cases 94-1943 & 94-1944, wherein the judges in question rely upon; (my words) "an insignificant authority (precedent) COMPLETELY irrelevant to the appeals in question, forcing expulsion of the appeals by despotism."
Within the evidence presented: The questions of constitutional supremacy arise; can a state law section 2-622 IL code of civil procedure, OVERRULE article 3 section 2.1 "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity...." AND the fourteenth amendment section 1 ...."no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Further, in the manner of judicial immunity, Does article 3 section 1 establish the CONSTITUTIONAL authority and rule ..."The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR,......" OR NOT?
Further, in the matter of JUSTICE, Does a rule of procedure as seen in the cases prior to appeals 94-1943 & 94-1944 OVERRULE THE LAW, and a citizens need, and the Constitutional demand, to provide Justice; NOT as a mock court, intent upon harassing the citizen, BUT an HONORABLE ADMINISTRATION OF TRUE JUSTICE, within the law. A rule is not a law, it is a format, NOT, expected or intended to be an abuse or injury to the people. True Justice would not fail to hear, or to act, because a minor procedural mistake is made, AND WOULD NEVER DESTROY OR HIDE, this is FEAR and TYRANNY and OPPRESSION, and TREASON!
Within the evidence presented: The medical Monopoly is established, by the quest for JUSTICE, identified as appeal 94-1944. This "legal journey, through the court" proves a suitable foundation for evaluation of the realities of commerce, and billing and labeling, and freedom, and Democracy! The DENIAL of, freedom of information (FREEDOM OF THE PRESS) RIGHTS associated with medicine, proves to be an integral reality associated with MEDICAL MONOPOLIES, (with the governments consent) establishing control, that controversies may not occur, depriving the citizen of duty and the liberty to right wrongs, as a public citizen might. (WE the people deserve, all relevant information, regarding realities that may COST OUR LIVES, health, and property, at "next day" intervals.) The government is guilty of refusing this right, BY allowing the medical establishment to refuse OUR RIGHT!
The definitions, of citizen rights, with regard to the medical realities of this time and place, deserve to be DERIVED FROM THE PEOPLE! Developed from billing abuses, patient rights abuses, courtroom abuses and NOT FREE ENTERPRISE situations which become extortion, CLEARLY establish, the time has come, the case is RIPE, and JUSTICE is REQUIRED! The Foundation and security of the people IS built upon FAIR, (TO ALL) PRINCIPLES, CONSENT IS FREEDOM, EQUALITY IS A DUTY, HONOR IS THE GUARD OF LIBERTY! THESE ARE NECESSARY arenas to an understanding of common need and legal DUTY! IT IS A FAIR ASSERTION THAT, A CLASS ACTION SUIT IS REQUIRED!
This Petition for Redress of Grievances, IS RIPE, and the opportunity to confront and correct injustice is at hand, NOT within the context of a personal exercise, BUT a NEED expressed and established as representative of the entire population. WE are all subject to, being human. The LEGAL ISSUES represented as the first and primary cause for Redress (JUSTICE IS A DEBT OWED TO THE PUBLIC CITIZEN, medicine is a MONOPOLY), establishes Jurisdiction WITHIN THE COURT. And is properly supported by the Constitutional decree and demand: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity........"
AND does form a suitable platform capable of including the events and circumstances of many citizens, for the purpose and intent of the words, "the preamble of the United States Constitution": the Nation and its people have consented to, and DID DIE FOR. Those being: 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.
These words describe, how its suppose to be, and why it is important enough to die for, in association with the bill of rights and the declaration of independence.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Adherence is expected within the following words of the court justices:
MARBURY V. MADISON 1803
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: "That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected....."
EUCLID V. AMBLER REALITY CO. 272 US 365
JUSTICE SUTHERLAND: ...."while the meaning of constitutional guarantees never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise....."
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA 274 US 357
....Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties....that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; .....they eschewed silence, coerced by law- the argument of force in its worst form.
UNITED STATES V. CRUIKAHANK 92 US 542, 552
The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances. The first amendment of the federal constitution expressly guarantees' that right.......to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. THEREIN LIES THE SECURITY OF THE REPUBLIC, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT!
(MY WORDS) These things are not political, they are foundation principles of government and Justice, and can only be properly viewed as, INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS!
A REDRESS, MUST TAKE ON A NATIONAL SCALE, THIS IS OUR GOVERNMENT, AND IT SHALL AFFECT ALL OUR LIVES! As such the court is expected to provide ADEQUATE COUNCIL, for the public interest. EVEN SO, my absolute right to be involved, IS CLEAR!
A SEARCH FOR ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OUR COMMON security, the RIGHT OF PEACE, and RESPECT FOR LIBERTY all declare a need exists to search among the realities of this day; and call for evidence through permanent common interest: AND issue warrants to see what remains of the freedoms, the HONOR, and the JUSTICE for which men/women have died.
We are people, crowded into a world that has.become defined by the extremes of mankind. There IS an assortment of ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT, any one of which would start an avalanche of, "cause and effect relationships", that create DEATH (a loss that cannot be measured until its too late).
This application of fundamental RIGHTS, understood as, a redress of grievances, applies the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom of the entire nation, and then the world, to OUR SURVIVAL, as a planet, an environment, and a species!
The common complaint: "I don't want to be involved;" BORDERS ON TREASON, because the problems that exist, threaten every LIFE. History reveals whatever man/woman has access to, WILL eventually be used, IRREGARDLESS of the known consequences.
The common cry, "what's in it for me", would be better served by, "what will happen, IF"! Reality says the future IS determined by the past. The past is full of "it can't happen here, NOT to me, NOT to us, ETC." The past is also full of promises, "we won't let it happen, we will control, it won't cost much, ETC"!
These words, this legal description is evidence of DUTY. I, as a person, confronted directly, sufficiently trained, and capable of understanding this must be corrected, "am exactly like you" NOT interested in being a public figure. With regard to these words, the case enclosed, the record reviewed, I was drafted. It is NOT my desire to be involved, RATHER it is a duty of those who want and believe in freedom, liberty, and a peaceful society; arrogance changes to tyranny, and then to oppression! It is lack of JUSTICE which shall change the battle from words to blood; look to the past, when arrogance ruled, the nation dissolved.
YOU, as a citizen, WILL decide the importance of your own opinion (the result of the case, as a description of redress of grievances). REDRESS MEANS, YOU WILL CHOOSE, by your own actions, the rules/LAW YOU live by, and the actual threat which exists, AND the method of intervention. There is no intent to say, "the world, isn't as safe today as it was 10 years ago", RATHER these descriptions are about the future, NEAR AND WITHIN OUR LIFETIME. Does anything fix itself, or will failure occur, before repairs are made? HOW EXPENSIVE THEN!
This said, YOU SHALL also inherit or deal with the problems that exist, either with your consent OR without it! The Choice is YOURS, irregardless of any courtroom decision,
THE CONSTITUTION AND REALITY SAY: This shall be so!
Truth is NOT a relationship of "I WANT", truth is without emotion or desire or choice, in human terms, a defined reality. Truth in absolute terms, IS THE TOOL OF LIFE AND LOVE, and DOES identify CREATION as an ETERNITY, TRUTH NEVER CHANGES (ENERGY, never dies, But it can be changed).
YOU, must then consider what is true in YOU: Do you accept RESPONSIBILITY? Truth will establish the opportunity to select, search, and define through a Redress (to make right, to remove the cause). Those in power will move aside, ONLY, IF the VAST majority insist.
Democracy exists as "COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT" OR, it will fail!
The "PEOPLE PROBLEMS" of this day, CAN BE FIXED. TOMORROW, WILL be realized Either: as peace, security, and happiness, OR the problems of today will be completely forgotten, REPLACED WITH EXTREMES!
WE ARE 6 BILLION PEOPLE, and there will be order or chaos, the line between shall be erased! These words are meant, NOT for fear, BUT to develop the relationship of past and present, to the future, and to discuss the RISK that this may be so, and to assess the possibilities of repair, against the question of revenge. The answer is found in, how many does it take to start a war, how hard is it to stop!
SUCH THINGS AS
Billions of guns
Population pressures beyond all hope of sustainment
Nuclear bombs, chemical bombs, biological bombs, all under the control of one person, or a soldier capable of insanity. (someone pushes the button).
Biological mutation, under the whim of man/woman.
Poverty, medical abandonment, and NO work, the inevitable result of NO RESOURCES
ETC.
These things and more are the present/future, UNLESS WE CHANGE. The decision literally IS YOURS, the answer literally is ALL OF US, the choice is TAKE CONTROL AS A DEMOCRACY: or wait for the inevitable reality of "I DON'T CARE, I GOT MINE, AND I WON'T SHARE". It won't be long!
WE ARE, ONE AT A TIME, THE FUTURE! The only question left: Will people share and care and be responsible, or not?
The words and questions presented by this material IS NOT about me, or the government, or even the court, OUR REALITY IS DETERMINED BY OURSELVES!
Respect demands, IF words are used then words must also apply proper evaluations.
Justice IS NOT a description, NOT a penalty, NOT a law: JUSTICE is a definition of LIFE AND LIVING, applied to the realities of FREEDOM and the cost of anger. Justice portrays HOPE (a belief that TRUTH, shall never change) to DUTY (a reality of existence) as the cost of HAPPINESS. Mercy believes the conception of PEACE (valued friendship) shall occur in all.
In a man's world "Justice" reveals the exchange of anger, for revenge; Idolatries form the basis of all other attempts to form social behaviors.
It is necessary to understand anger (pride without honor) as different from insanity (the acceptance of "voices" from within) and violence (belief that those "voices" have authority and must be obeyed). An example of voices is heard in the expression, "I, can't hear myself think"! The mind KNOWS everything in it, it doesn't have to listen to itself, this IS different!
Justice forms the barrier, composed of pain, suffering, WANT, and need; when Justice becomes true, Reality changes to: EQUAL SHARE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL BENEFITS, AND FREEDOM wherever the end result, sustains life and happiness.
In the past life was bought and sold. Social Justice encompasses FREEDOM for all, Reality dictates,: CHOICES, that DO NOT HARM, (physically, or intentionally produce mental trauma: emotions are different) other life forms, are freedoms which MUST be allowed, (an allowance is made for the purpose of food, WHEN CARRIED OUT, AS QUICK AND PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE).
Justice encompasses the question of property, meaning "of the earth". Justice DICTATES, "what belongs to everyone, belongs to NO ONE"! Reality allows the liberty to accept the responsibility of ownership (to take NO MORE, than you need, and leave the rest). IT IS DISCIPLINE (proven responsibility) that determines ownership. The question of RIGHT, belongs to the entire NATION, as well as the WORLD!
Issues include, Justice (social harmony) distinguishes RIGHT from WRONG. The development of wrong, fundamentally REQUIRES CHANGE! Change is DIFFERENT, than punishment. Change conforms, by TEACHING, by restraint, by discipline, and by VALUE (LIFE IS GREATER THAN WANT)!
Those who FAIL by great measure, ISSUE the call, PUNISHMENT! These are ONLY, "THE VIOLENT, without cause"; those who themselves become the description of DESTRUCTION. These are entitled to the experience of "NO MERCY", but not by a mans' hand, RATHER through the natural process of nature, being cast out of society to live at the extremes of temperature and climate, FOR A SHORT TIME (food & water for a week).3TP3T It is here that they (a few), will learn, and eternity shall be LESS HARSH!
ETERNITY REMEMBERS, DO NOT take this matter, as a right. Men/women are NOT defined by other men/women, MORE IS AT RISK, than mere physical death, FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED!
HAPPINESS REQUIRES JUSTICE, JUSTICE PRODUCES EQUALITY, EQUALITY PRODUCES PEACE, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
ITEM #32
RETYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WASHINGTON DC 20543
WILLIAM K. SUTER, clerk of the court
DATED OCT 13, 1994
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
RE: OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES
PETITIONER: JAMES F. OSTERBUR
The enclosed papers were received on Oct 13, 1994. These papers fail to comply with the rules of the court and are herewith returned.
You may seek review of a decision only by filing a timely petition for writ of certiorari. The papers you submitted are not construed to be a writ of certiorari. Should you choose to file a petition for writ of certiorari, you must submit the petition within the 90 day time limit allowed under rule 13 of the rules of the court. A copy of the rules of this court and a sample petition for a writ of certiorari are enclosed.
In forma pauperis department
202-479-3019
ITEM #33
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
RE; OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT: William K. Suter
The papers sent to the supreme court, SIMPLY AND CLEARLY , "DECLARING A DIRECT APPEAL, UNDER OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION", in NO WAY suggest a writ of certiorari!
" The papers are not a petition for review.
This legal public action IS A DEMAND, to investigate corrupt practice and policy, as has been found within the judicial system and which has contaminated the medical MONOPOLY over the public (a true matter of commerce).
The trials/appeals listed DO NOT seek review of specific confrontation, aside from necessary examination to ascertain these , as "the evidence which convicts"!
The appeal is DISTINCTLY DEFENDED, page 6, "This appeal legitimately defined within the third article of the United States Constitution."
This appeal is DISTINCTLY DEFINED, page 8-9, "Establish,
A legal Redress of Grievances, according to the first Amendment
Proper judicial regard for Inalienable Rights......WITH PENALTIES
THE COMMERCE, MONOPOLY, AND DISCRIMINATION charges, as identified regarding the medical industry.
Each of the defendants listed has earned the RIGHT.
The United States of America IS the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and its PEOPLE.
The integrity of the Officials hired to do the work IS subject to a legal determination, when the sovereignty and righteousness of the United States of America is being corrupted.
The State of Illinois IS the supervisor of its courts, BEING RESPONSIBLE, for their actions, and its consequences.
Covenant Medical Center, Urbana IL, initiated and identified the problem WAS given every opportunity to reconsider and refused. It is only justice, that they be allowed, to represent the medical industry, as they are fully acquainted with every detail.
The Judges of the U.S.C.A. as listed, were given the IMPORTANT JOB, and were sworn to uphold, the integrity of the court as DEFINED by the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights and Authority of its PEOPLE.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RE; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
OSTERBUR
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
et al
DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT, Thomas F. Strubbe
The documents returned RE; 94-1943 ARE indeed a DIRECT APPEAL to the U.S. Supreme Court, NOT a writ of Certiorari.
The Judges whose names appear upon each packet ARE DEFENDANT, WITHIN that legal action, and these returned packets are their notice (look at the list on the appeal).
Their names appear because they are the final defense within a legitimate and REASONABLE appeal and they DID FAIL completely, to do their job.
This direct appeal then directs the U. S. Government to examine the practices and polices and adhere to the third article of the U. S. Constitution, section 1 "The judges of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR......".
Disciplinary action or dismissal is therefore the call, page 7, "show me, the frivolous nature of these appeals and identify, the courts discretion, as LEGAL procedure, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION".
I, will again issue the statement: "Fraud is a criminal term, without notice or opportunity to defend, I was forced to turn over private property." "Medical extortion, exists when a trauma patient IS NOT EQUAL, to a Corporate entity, within the Judicial system.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
TO: Clerk of the Court, William K. Suter
RE: OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES et. al. DEFENDANTS
REFERENCE TO LETTER OCT 13, 1994
This date 10/27/94
The Definition of Direct Appeal from section 1253, title 28 "any party may appeal to the supreme court......." The appeal in question DISTINCTLY falls within the Anti-Trust laws of title 15 commerce and Trade
The Constitutionality of a state law, which directly caused me injury, and is a violation of legal rights, and COULD do so again, and DOES injure any other trauma patient, in the same manner.
The Reality of denial of due process and equal protection : as was illegally withheld from me throughout these court actions.
The issue of Mandamus to the inferior court OR acceptance of jurisdiction by the supreme court IS DUE. The decision by the Appellate Court to fundamentally DENY BY BLATANT PREJUDICE, read the appeal, ESTABLISHES COLOR OF LAW and issues their (Judges) acceptance and inclusion within this suit.
From title 28 section 2101 supreme court (b) appealed from a decision of a "federal appellate court", in any civil action, suit or proceeding.
The appellate court could not be more clear in its decision , and is final, see appeal page 3.
The authorization of LAW is Constitutional in origin and fact, as related to this appeal, THE EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE.
READ THE APPEAL
UNDERSTAND; the dictionary meaning of Constitution QUOTE: ".... A charter of the government deriving its whole authority from the governed. the written instrument agreed upon by the people of the union (e.g. Constitution) or of a particular state, as the absolute RULE OF ACTION and decision for all departments (i.e. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all points covered by it, which must control...."
This legal public action DEMANDS the first amendment right: ".....for a redress of grievances...." to PROTECT THIS DEMOCRACY FROM CORRUPTION THROUGH DEMOCRATIC LEGAL ACTIONS.
THE RIGHT, THE DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, IS Due Process And Equal Protection and therefrom produces Jurisdiction of the people over MISUSE OF POWER , AND OBLIGATES THE COURT, to establish and protect this fundamental first amendment RIGHT AND LAW.
The LAW OF THE LAND DEMANDS a hearing and establishes my standing to bring suit ARTICULATED AS: The declaration of independence"........That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, to alter or to abolish it......laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......"
CORRUPTION, MUST BE FOUGHT, Corruption exists within the court, the people MUST...........SECURE, the Blessings of LIBERTY, to ourselves and our posterity........"
ACCEPT THIS: The courtroom is NOT a Monarchy. The Judge is NOT a ruler. The COURT IS where PEOPLE ESTABLISH RIGHT.
THE DEFINITION OF OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION; is identified within Judicial canon 3 : Constitutional OBLIGATIONS Judicial Canon 22: Review and Judicial Canon 34: A summary of Judicial Obligation.
These Canons fall DISTINCTLY within a proper understanding of Judicial Canon 2: The public interest "Courts exist to promote JUSTICE, and thus serve the public interest...........for the litigants."
I HAVE NOW written to you, specifically, William K. Suter twice, regarding your deliberate and willful misrepresentation of the facts submitted within this DIRECT APPEAL. Your intentional disregard for the Constitutional Right and Relief, which the LAW allows to each citizen, presents a barrier, fundamentally defined as " Obstruction of Justice". You are hereby instructed to successfully administer the duties of the Clerk. ACCEPT THE APPEAL, as written, OR identify problems which arise in connection with a direct Constitutional Appeal` to the supreme court , arising under the Obligation of DUTY, to SUPPORT, OBSERVE, AND APPLY, the fundamental limitations and guarantees of the Constitution of the United States.
Be it noted neither a copy of the Rules or sample petition has been sent to me either time and failure to correct your attitude or sloppiness is inexcusable.
The statement is further made and clarified YOU are NOT the judge, your JOB IS to fulfill the purpose of the LAW, to grant EACH CITIZEN, the OPPORTUNITY, to be heard in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time.
Rule 13, requiring a full financial declaration was met and enclosed with my initial filing and DOES contain the seal of your office. Suggestions that this Rule, the ONLY rule you describe, was not followed, is PURE CONJECTURE.
DO, establish MY RIGHT, or efforts will be made seeking REVIEW of your work, and your JOB.
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, title 28 section 2072 (b) "such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right....."
ITEM #34
(Part of the second filing)
WITHIN THESE WORDS
Exist the tools to become the Democracy as it was intended, and to recognize the
peoples' authority, that has existed since
the first amendment to the constitution.
This then is Liberty: to KNOW "I, YOU, WE"
CAN make a difference!
This then is Freedom: to UNDERSTAND,
"I, YOU, WE" CAN CHOOSE!
It is fair to state, the reactions of the
court exhibit the fear of change, it is therefore
necessary to understand, and be realistic
about the inappropriate choices made.
It is also FAIR to state, what is truly OURS,
is then also, OUR UNDENIABLE RIGHT!
The charge is made against the court, UNFAIR, UNETHICAL, and DEFIANT TO THE PEOPLE'S AUTHORITY and TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT AND PURPOSE, and IS IN DIRECT CONTENTION WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS! THE CHARGE THEN IS ISSUED "CONSTITUTIONAL PIRACY"! The evidence shall be developed through the record, and supported by the peoples right to a class action suit.
DEVELOPING DEMOCRACY: "A TOOL OF THE PEOPLE"
The fundamental formation of, "WE the people", develops through the simple concept of one person/one vote. The function of a vote is to establish a peaceful and secure Society, devoid of the problems associated with money, education, position, etc. The accomplishment that is authority, develops control through understanding; and wisdom, through involvement of an entire nation/state/community, etc. The wisdom being many voices, that the ears may sift through what is real, what is right, and what is wrong. The understanding: RARELY will the majority be so badly confused, that society fails.
It is true Societies fail, it is that knowledge which defines and determines that a free man/woman shall set their Reality (akin to law) in the form of SIMPLE TRUTHS (boundaries/rules). For a nation this is a Constitution, and its purpose is to control the majority so that EVERYONE IS EQUAL. Equality is the ONLY TRUE FUNCTION of a Constitution, while a vote is the truth and the method claimed as: "of the people, by the people, and for the people!"
These are the words of Right, the words of Freedom, of Liberty, and of "the human answer to domestic tranquillity, security, and inalienable rights"! The concept of Right obligates society as well to; the realities of Wrong, and therein JUSTICE: "The receipt of FAIR (Equal) treatment to every person, irregardless of prejudice, pre-conceived ideas', or realities unimportant to a specific event or occurrence". These things determine and become the Destiny of every Nation (ITS PEOPLE, fight for it when its FAIR, or may abandon it to ruin, if it is not). The function of Justice is therefore, in its most eloquent sense: I AM FREE, for I pay with DUTY, HONOR, AND LIFE, in the ways that protect, defend, and support OUR LIVES and the RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
It is this Justice that focuses upon the Realities called, "Tyranny, an abuse of authority beyond the limits of consent." It is inevitably true the words which empower, are the words which divide. How these two armed camps perceive each other determines the danger and identifies: as enemies (a fear) developed from "they could hurt me", as hatred (a prejudice/fear) developed from, "they could take/or have taken, my good life from me", as Jealousy (a greed and a surrender, that others have defeated "my hopes") the formation of trials and tribulations over "small or insignificant details". It is the progression of these three distinct usurpations for the purposes of power (to control others), that form the principles of destruction: to assign the majority, NO SAY, NO RIGHTS, NO CHOICES.
A vote without consequence is useless.
A right without Justice is oppression.
A choice that exists between UNFAIR and enforced (the price is very high) is life dictated by another.
It is the development of "the expert", that diminishes majority rule: The purpose is to remove the "common citizen", to make his/her vote, not only pointless, but dangerous. Let it be recognized true Democracy IS, about the pursuit of HAPPINESS through peaceful actions, and defense against danger and violence. The common citizen IS THE EXPERT regarding their happiness, and they will endure whatever comes of their defenses or their lack of allegiance to duty. In America those who are still involved, reduce their vote to "someone to vote for me (one type of, expert)". The consequence of that decision now looms as ENORMOUS DEBT, spent for, and arsenal of weapons capable of destroying all life on earth in minutes: and these are, the primary beginnings of all other social unrest.
Politicians are only useful to carry out instructions of the majority; NOT as lawmakers, NOT as rulers, NOT the conscience NOR the morals, RATHER the investigators to inspect and insure the PEOPLES' CHOICES, are properly carried to; a common benefit, security, and equality for all.
NOW comes the decision: With duty comes honor and responsibilities; With neglect, destruction!
The words and cases included herein establish cause for alarm, NOT arrogance (tear it down) RATHER a warrant to inspect, a government to preserve within its rightful intent, and the blessings of liberty within the mutual duty of all, by the FREEDOM applied within the first amendment of the United States Constitution, those words being ".......and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The meaning of these words is clearly found within the Declaration of Independence: "......In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress, in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury....". The words mean: LISTEN TO OUR COMPLAINT, and respect our right to consent, and to be Equal!
Words are a powerful tool, the only power in these words arise from your own Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. They are your possession, bought with pain and misery and blood to be your answer, SIMPLY USE THEM!
It is FAIR, to include these descriptions of the Peoples' Authority, included in this Right:
To cause adherence to honorable Justice!
To evaluate and choose over matters such as the "Vietnam War".
To establish the SIMPLE principles that preserve and defend!
To produce Liberty: ....the indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform.....(Bill of Rights, section 3)
And to accomplish Democracy: OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE!
These cases are to be submitted as a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court, NOT a personal grievance, BUT a demand for public redress, with evidence. I am poor, therefore the cost in money, is to be covered by the provisions of the court, as it should be. I will wait until october 10, 1995, to submit. That an opportunity for the public to discover and choose may exist. This shall be a class action suit, if sufficient interest is established. Class action will be requested when the case is filed and hopefully will not change the financial status. (see the enclosed brief and abstract, to be used).
Should you choose to join,
send a POST CARD ONLY to, box 103, Royal, IL 61871.
With the words: "for the first amendment Right, to establish a Redress of Grievances, I DO JOIN"!
IF YOU WISH, YOU MAY INCLUDE:
IF, a minimum number of people: _______(your demand)_______; do so also.
You must be of voting age.
Without cost of a financial nature to YOU (the sender), assuming the provision for in forma pauperis holds. Irregardless no money will be entitled or called for, with respect to this petitioner, any cost will be informed consent; however any loss, monetary or otherwise that may be incurred as a result of this legal action, from the court or government or issues beyond my control, is at your own risk.
Understanding this is a serious concern that could affect individual lives in many ways, as well as, the public good. The question should be: "What are the possibilities for the future, with this redress, or without, as things are"?
The issue of fatigue is inappropriate, the reliance upon the powers that be, could bring increasing abuse; The directive of the Constitution, in its own words, IS: "We the people .....in order to form a more perfect union......."
LIFE, issues a simple demand, take an active role and search for happiness, OR your existence will be a moment to moment battle (a victory once in a while, but primarily a struggle and a separation).
The case and (record, when allowed) shall be sent by/for me on october 10, 1995 to the United States Supreme Court, , as " United States Supreme Court, redress of the people"!
TO THE PEOPLE
JUSTICE REQUIRES INVOLVEMENT, DO YOU DESIRE JUSTICE?
This is a fundamental exercise in DEMOCRACY
INTENT upon a fundamental change in DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY, FOR
THE PEOPLE!
Upon being confronted directly, the realities I, have found, greatly exceeded the amount of corruption expected within the judicial system of the United States of America
The relevant issue: HOW TO PERMANENTLY ESTABLISH JUSTICE?
The ONLY answer: to allow the people a JUDICIAL OPPORTUNITY, to throw the bum out, and to change the LAW, within constitutional limits, that shows itself to be corrupt or lacking by "vote upon the law itself". One man, one woman, one vote! Per each issue that the people select, identify, and articulate through the media, for themselves.
This case OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al DEFENDANTS (see enclosed papers).
Defines the problems and there are many, and seeks to establish, A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the first amendment, of the constitution of the united states, as written within the words of the Declaration of independence: OUR HERITAGE!
I, personally believe the court DOES recognize the issues involved, but is TOO CORRUPT, to remain within constitutional law!
Review of the case will show, fundamental rights and guarantees of the constitution WERE DENIED! As well as, the court has NO LEGAL DEFENSE, for the poverty of their actions.
At this time the clerk of the supreme court, having been forewarned, and failing to support his erroneous conclusions or identify mine stands accused by me, James F. Osterbur of obstruction of justice, and grand theft of Constitutional judicial rights of a citizen, like any other. The blockade used by William K. Suter, warrants the charge; HE has erected and misused his position to stand as judge and jury over this case (his position is unsupported), A POSITION OF AUTHORITY HE DOES NOT HOLD.
ITEM #35
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
(Not used, applied to provide additional prospective)
THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
as represented by, OSTERBUR, JAMES FRANK
2191 cr 2500E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
AS REPRESENTED BY COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
1400 W PARK
URBANA, IL 61801
THE U.S. APPEALLATE COURT JUSTICES
U.S.C.A. OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
as listed below
RICHARD A. POSNER
JOHN L. COFFEY
DANIEL A. MANION
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
FILED UNDER ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: This case selects the courtroom realities of a citizen to represent the Realities facing the people, of this Nation. Given the degree of ABUSE, "Treasonable conduct", and constitutional cancer, associated with one person's trip throughthe court system and the medical industry. It IS DEMANDED the inalienable RIGHT, of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States be
IMPLEMENTED, as written, and more importantly, AS INTENDED!
The words which apply...."A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." Established before the Nation to assert, identify, correct, and solidify the Reality of our inheritance, OUR CONTRACT, TO DIE IF NECESSARY, to protect the meaning and the true intent of the preamble to the Constitution, and its Bill of Rights!
The United States Government is hereby charged with FAILURE to conform the Judiciary to the Constitution, as applied to the cases hereby presented, OR to its INTENT, with regard to: "A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" and as otherwise noted throughout the trials and appeals listed, and as may be added through class action.
The DEMAND: Establish the RIGHT, to a redress of grievances by formally DELIBERATELY erecting the means and methods necessary
to implement this first amendment, RIGHT.
The Medical Industry IS confronted with the charge: THIS IS NOT FREE ENTERPRISE! And therefore cannot be treated as such.
The DEMAND: Control the monopoly, separate FAIR billing from extortion, and recognize Reality and its methods.
The State of Illinois is charged with Failure to adequately oversee their Judicial branch, and Failure to contend for the citizen, NOT against!
The DEMAND: Establish Equality and honor, through respect. Return the ILL supreme court to, OF THE PEOPLE (the rules of the court demand the word PRAYER be used, its meaning to speak to god CLEARLY NOT OF THE PEOPLE).
The Federal Court Justices cannot use ignorance as an excuse, they deliberately refused to obey constitutional mandate, and issued statements intended to deny without cause, a citizens constitutional right.
The DEMAND: remove them, without pension, UNLESS verification exists their past deserves another chance, in which case, they deserve to be demoted to a lower court.
I, James F. Osterbur, DO stand as a victom of Unconstitutional, Deliberate, Judicial treason. My life, My Values, My Freedoms are at the Foundation of these controversies and I, have been attacked, WITHOUT CAUSE! The binding force of this arguement enlarges from an illegal abuse of courtroom procedures (the failure to adhere to FUNDAMENTAL, Due Process of Law), the right to be informed of all charges prior to a courtroom proceeding, and ends upon Article 3, section 1 of the Constitution ....."the judges, both of the supreme and inferior court, shall hold their offices during good behavior...."
It is hereby demanded, the purpose and the definition of these words be given meaning according to the intent and written obligation of the Constitution of the United States, A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND THOSE HIRED. The obligation IS clear, the words are binding, and the RIGHT to remove is authorized.
These words DO NOT represent a single circumstance, but are the accumulation of distinct contempt, unwarranted and destructive, by/as seen in, the select cases set forth. The state of Illinois being inquired upon for help, chose to be the aggressor and becomes implicated by the RIGHT of its jurisdiction over the court system of the State of Illinois (the state represents all its citizens, and therefrom gets its jurisdiction). The State IS an overseer assigned through the office of the attorney general and its own Constitution, to ADHERE to all constitutional (state and Federal) DIRECT DEMANDS, that apply to specific citizen guards against despotism.
The cases represented CLEARLY establish: the courtroom has a Ruler, NOT a judge, those hired to guard the people FAIL, the lack of money prejudices and predetermines the outcome, the lack of a legal education REMOVES the sovernign Right, to protect yourself, your family, or your property. These things transform legal rights to the Reality of, "will they (the judiciary) grant mercy, or let the " wolves" devour, in a game (if you don't have every punctuation mark, every specilized word or phrase, every "grain of sand" neatly in place, you the litigant may simply be discarded) only a few greedy people are allowed to play." (Only lawyers). This is far closer to reality, than the words the court is suppose to adhere to.
THE SIMPLE AND PLAIN:
From the Illinois Preamble to the Constitution, Supreme law, Constitution, section 1, subsecion 3, Quote "The Constitution is the Supreme law, and every citizen is bound to obey it, and every court is bound to enforce its provisions, leaving court NO discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision according to his judgement as to its wisdom or whether public good will be subserved by disregarding People V. Sholem 1920, 294 ILL 204, 128 N.E. 377.
The initiating action case 92s 2991; can judgement be issued upon a charge NEVER MADE, or formally implied? And therefrom is it illegal to apply a criminal charge, FRAUD, to a defendant who has NEVER been charged. Is this beyond the scope or intent of constitutional Due Process? Does the authority who removes himself from the bench to become the prosecutor and issue this charge, remove himself from the scope and intent of constitutionally applied authority? Rather, as seen within the protection of the sixth amendment, the fifth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment, as well as the Bill of Rights, the charge issued by definition is a criminal charge and the Right of the defendant is completely clear.
The relief sought: Suitable redress of grievances as allowed by the first amendment. That solution being as identified herein, through public vote.
The Initiating action, case 4-93-0441; Judgement as given, is without doubt, a CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBVERSION of the intent of Constitutional law, A complete FAILURE of the preamble citations, and their honest intent from the constitution of the state of Ill, and a Fundamental attack upon the rights of those dependant upon a FAIR JUDICIARY. These then are the actions of the state of Ill appellate judges.
The relief sought: a suitable Redress of Grievances as ordered by the first amendment and outlined as issues represented herein.
The state of Ill FAILS the test, as seen in the Judicial Inquiry board Nov 23, 1993, to support and defend the citizen through the constitution, THIS LITERALLY IS THEIR JOB!
The relief sought: Adequate inquiry and jurisdiction and authority, and as outlined in the issues represented herein.
The initiating action case 76128 of the Supreme court of Ill. Examined as Reliance upon Judicial Canon 2. The public interest, quote, "courts exist to promote justice, and thus serve the public interest. Their administration should be speedy and careful. Every ......the courts for the litigants. Judicial canon 3. Constitutional Obligations, quote, "it is the duty of all judges in the U. S. to support the federal constitution and that of the state whose laws they administer; in so doing, they should fearlessly observe and apply fundamental limitations and guarantees.
From the supreme court of Ill, was asked, (case 4-93-0441) SHOW ME THE LAW, and defend the judicial supposition that a procedural rule is greater than LAW OR JUSTICE OR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES. Their reply, "Denied", can only be interpreted as, "the fundamental rights of an individual citizen are beneath our comment, is devoid of consequence to the court, Must be PAID FOR or will be discarded". Further, the court was asked, examine the documents and establish proof, reasonable compliance was NOT made! The court FAILED, according to judicial canon 22. Review: quote, "In order that a litigant may secure the full benefit of the right of review accorded to him BY LAW, a trial judge should scrupulously grant to the defeated party opportunity to present the questions arising upon the trial exactly as they arose, were presented, and decided, by full and fair bill of exceptions or otherwise; any failure in this regard on the part of the judge is peculiarly worthy of condemnation because the wrong done may be irremediable. I, a litigant, received ABUSE NOT JUSTICE, during trial, a MOCKERY OF JUSTICE during appeals, and NO RESPECT for constitutional decree or inalienable rights from the supreme court, not even an attempt.
These things brought suit to Federal district court case 94-2001: According the the "ex parte young" exception which allows federal court to hear suits against state officials if, the suit seeks to force them to conform their conduct to federal law. Federal Jurisdiction chapter 2:12 page 89, "other limitations of judicial review".
In 94-2001, the Fundamental constitutional question begins: Shall the power of the Judidiary OR Authority of the people preside; (the judiciary has already been shown as ruler rather than judge in the lower court cases, the state official board of Inquiry has NO authority, and the Rule, has replaced both law and justice.)
So begins the primary expression: WE THE PEOPLE, establish the power and authority of government! The Constitution and Bill of Rights, DO establish the Directive from/for the people: "Use these WORDS, to conform government to the people, NOT people to the government!
Federal court refers to these issues as FRIVOLOUS.
The relief sought: A redress of grievances, according to the first amendment, and suitable means to be heard as a class action legal forum and the means to a constructive constitutional by the people, of the people, for the people, end.
The Fundamental principles of government, THE REALITY OF LAW, then, COULD BE/MUST BE CHOSEN, OR REARRANGED, OR REVIEWED, BY VOTE, NOT merely legislated. Citations listed throughout 94-2001 and this case substantiate the call to return to: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and clearly defines the need/right to make an informed vote, within constitutional guidelines, ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES/LAWS themselves, through the first amendment right TO, A redress of grievances!
EVALUATION BEGINS UPON the charge of collusion, between the government and the medical industry; the second series of facts, realities, and betrayal. Be it recognized the purpose of the words IS, to improve not destroy!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO state a situation of ABUSE, OPPRESSION, and accusations of a libelous nature, enjoined by the medical society upon me, produced the cause and serious injuries sustained by me, and initiated fundamental extortion by reason of NO possibility to challange, even through the court system. This result forms the basic allegiance between medicine and government, aganist the inalienable rights of citizenship, the guarantee of "freedom of religion", and the principles upon which liberty and freedom reside.
The right of citizenship granted by the Bill of Rights section 15, "That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." JUSTICE with regard to medical billing demands the opportunity to contest a bill, yet the court says, "there is no law: even though any other business dealing demands a fair appraisel be made, and in section 11 of the bill of rights; that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred." How can JUSTICE say to me, "pay anything they ask, you have NO Rights, these are exempt from common ethical/legal practices"?
My own history became intertwined with medical Realities at an earlier time, and without doubt initiated the extremely poor treatment I received, that became the point of contention. The medical society concept, that they can understand and describe a/any human being within a simple word or phrase, is this reality. Yet these same people will admit no such word or phrase, identifying their behavior or intellect exists, creating a separate environment. So it is that they would brand me and others, and did so without my consent, without public trial, without ANY UNDERSTANDING OR DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND.
Regarding any behavior seen as different, It IS my right, to proceed with christian forbearance, love, and Duty, to seek knowledge, to obtain understanding, and to grasp wisdom, with a direct regard for my CREATOR. Whether any other man/woman/or child may agree or not, SO LONG AS, I do not hurt anyone, even though I may suffer for it a little! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF FREEDOM!
This conflict as represented, is NOT, "do you agree", this conflict IS can they LABEL, and thereby create deliberate harm, Without consent, without trial, without so much as listening for 5 minutes to the person, the medical establishment impells their own brand of Religious Fervor upon! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF TRYANNY? WHAT THEN IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, and to who does it belong!
The constitutional question becomes: Is the Bill of Rights, section 16, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not be force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to pratice christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other"; a FAIR AND ACCURATE STATEMENT, respecting the freedom to choose, in this society, OR NOT?
IF it is, then the medical society has not only exceeded its authority, but entered into the grounds of slander, libelous, defamatory statements and more.
The relief sought: Removal of blatant tryanny, the control of other people, through labeling. The use of any expression describing a person, by the medical profession, shall be limited to ACTUAL NEED, OR serious Criminal behaviors. Life through its various expressions shall be respected, even if not understood.
The medical society having defined my existence as dependant upon them, then established my identity in their records, as less than capable of being human; within their own idolitries. Medical files are not secret, access is granted in many ways.
The relief sought: Remove the Monopoly from me/us. Medicine has achieved control through labeling, through billing, through control of public information, through control of the supply of doctors entering the medical profession by limited access to college, through control of products used, no competition, through unconstitutional law Ill code of civil procedure 2-622, for example, the lack of an hourly rate, for services rendered, and no allowance for the outcome of a procedure or service or product. IN SIMPLE TERMS ESTABLISH FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT!
BRIEF
THE QUESTION; Is this Equal protection under the law?
The legal battle begins: A short time after my experience with the hospital, I know a heart attack occurred, being of much greater pain and intensity, yet the treatment I received caused me to choose death or disability, as preferrable to the treatment I received, from them. Having survived that, the bill comes for the previous visit; being SLANDERED, ABUSED, AND REJECTED. The hospital says,"I have no rights, pay the bill".
The court is asked to intervene 92-s-1561: I ask the court make them hear my complaint, and if not as a citizen, make them listen according to the law, which they gave me access to, the social security act, as described. The judge refuses, acknowledging to their lawyer, between tapes, she dosen't understand the social securty act, has no comprehension, and issues judgement anyway.
The controversies enlarge 92-c-1222: I ask the court, make it possible for all citizens to seek and obtain a FAIR AND ACCURATE billing, for services, as received (the statement did not reflect the poverty of the treatment); a situation that exists in all/every other business. The Judge says, I cannot, there is no law! Even a house has an inspector, to oversee the work, yet the hospital is free, where was the possibility to be heard, I LOOKED EVERYWHERE.
The controversy enlarges gen 4-93-0847: I ask the court, how can a state law section 2-622 REMOVE the Judiciary from its Constitutional Obligatiion, according to article 3, section 2.1 "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity....". The court replies, "failure to file coherent brief".
The controversy enlarges Ill 76450: I ask the court, Is this not tyranny? The court replies, DISMISSED!
The legal issues which have arisen each indicate an utter failure, with regard to Constitutional doctrine and Equal Rights, as well as, a usurption of power by the state of Ill, through section 2-622; creating law destructive to the constitution of the United States of America, and in DIRECT contention with its most basic principle, access to a fair court.
The federal court in 94-2060: I ask the court, this medical profession has obtained a complete MONOPOLY over me/us, there is NO JUSTICE, this must change! The court replies, "Frivolous"!
The controversy continues in Federal Appeals court through 94-1943 and 94-1944: I ask, What happened to Our Constitutional GUARANTEE, what happened to "let the law decide, not the judge"? The court replies: "In a manner completely defiant to, a fair hearing"!
The United States Supreme Court is next: I ask, investigate corrupt practice and policies, and FIX IT! The clerk of the court replies: change to a writ of certiorari, a writ which allows the court to dismiss without cause! I REFUSE, being certain no justice will occur if an option is given. The clerk blockades becoming the judge himself, IS this legal OR is this an obstruction of justice?
The various governmental committees assigned to watch over the Justice system of the U.S. are sent a short letter and evidence to indicate the clerk has exceeded his authority. One senator replies, to say its none of his business.
THE ARGUEMENT
These two series of courtroom controversy elicits the question: How many other people does this happen to, to what degree does money interfere with justice, what happened to HONOR?
The second question: Is a simple explanation insufficient, does the constitution belong only to the lawyer?
The third question: Irregardless of how the wording is portrayed, is there not sufficient evidence to indicate, Justice would demand a reasonable effort and hearing?
The fourth question: When did the words called the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, become so murky they could not be seen or understood?
The fifth question: Reality indicates no one controls the Justice department, it is assumed they can do it themselves, nothing could be farther from the truth; OR MONEY,in the form of lawyers, others, CONTROLS THE COURT. Adherence to the law, and let the judge decide, are opposites.
The sixth question: Do lawyers contribute to justice and fair play, are lawyers the difference between right and wrong, what happened to SIMPLE TRUTH?
The seventh question: Do Judges, do rules of procedure, or does constitutional adherence produce Social peace, freedom, liberty, and happiness?
The arguement occurs how can a simple citizen declare such things to high officials in the government, what right exists for a citizen to expect some measure of the TRUE MEANING AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS to be carried out.
The answer is found in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: "....that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a {new method}, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness..."
The situation exists and is identified AS constitutionally granted WITHIN the first Amendment: To the court I make my request within the clear and certain right/grant of that amendment, Establish a REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, that these things may be addressed by the people, and considered by the people, and fixed by the people, because there is no other way to remove and control corruption is government! That is the purpose of a redress, that is the method choosen by the constitution, and it does represent final control/authority to establish and confirm, "WE THE PEOPLE," shall determine our own destiny.
This request comes within the cause of; corruption, the peoples' authority, the Duty to defend the foundations of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice, and the honorable intent of Constitutional law (to firmly defend the RIGHTS, which do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government).
This then conforms action to discipline, to words, that I/WE shall perform the duty of citizenship, written within the words: "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."
Let it be understood, it IS to defend constitutional rights, NOT alter, or abolish or supercede them, that this PEACEFUL DEMOCRATIC ACTION is established as a beginning to a more proper Reality, as was fought for/died for, to protect those of us who want freedom.
WE are all capable of influencing OUR DESTINY, and together we hold the authority, BY VOTE, within our right.
The words of legal precedent establishing these implied powers, comes from McCulloch V. Maryland (1819) "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are PLAINLY adapted to that end, which are NOT prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."
JUSTICE AND A FREE SOCIETY: The formatiion and comprehension of choice, describe freedom. It is Honor that recognizes and defends JUSTICE. We are a Society at peace, ONLY when liberty, the price DUTY requires, is freely paid, because LIFE responds to need, to mercy, and to injustice. To abandon any part of these things is to die a slow death, whether that abandonment is by an individual, community, Nation, or even the WORLD.
Fear of change, Rules many lives. It is true, change alters the social structure. The Reality is, Equality Justifies change, Inherent Rights signal the end, OR the beginning of liberty, respect forms the foundation of, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"!
Independance is an association between people and nation and RIGHT. The words contained herein are fundamental democracy, principals and realities of justice, liberty without violence, and freedom through duty. The questions, the answers, the examples exist as privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.
No excuses will be accepted regarding time limitations, as the U.S. Supreme Court is BOUND, under the rule of Original Jurisdiction, to hear this pleading. AND, I do claim the time necessary to write, to hear from, the involved judicial committees of the U.S. government. AND, Do claim my first amendment right, respecting my choice not to proceed during the Christian Lenten season, and its EASTER SUNDAY! It is my RIGHT, just as our possession, our right IS: A VOTE OF CONSEQUENCE! RESPECT NOT FATIGUE! THE CONSTITUTION IS: A CONTRACT, WHICH REQUIRES ITS CITIZENS TO DIE FOR THE WORDS, BUT ONLY IF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL LIVE BY THE WORDS, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! The obligation exists for fulfillment of the debt owed, by the officials of government, to the people. That debt being the first amendment, as written.
RESOLUTION of these matters: Establish the means, Identify the method, insure constitutional adherence, and secure the RIGHT of the American people to its Constitutional Gurantee; A peaceful Redress of Grievances, according to the first amendment.
Arguement is mute, which suggests this is a political area, IT IS, a legal rights case, within and defined by, the constitution itself. This legal case is brought forth out of the courts themselves; and according to article 1, article 2, and article 3, the Judiciary IS SEPARATE.
The judicary shall decide all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution....shall define treason," a charge asserting constitutional hypocrisy, is a serious matter, involving the HEALTH of the nation."
Precedent Fenner V. Boykin 27 U.S. 240, 46 S. CT 492 (1926) "where it is necessary to prevent irreparable constitutional injury."
THE REMEDY, ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THIS REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, as the first NOT the last.
1. the controversy: INALIENABLE RIGHTS
topic: The difference between fundamental constitutional rights and ACTUAL functioning realities, as initially defined by the following legal cases and the composite description of an American heritage under SIEGE.
At issue: The right to control; who gives it, who protects it, who defines social behavior and its punishment?
Primary target: is constitutional literacy and the court system, and the judiciary!
Primary objective: Judicial guarantees and acceptance of, "If you are a judge, 3 major Ethical failures and your OUT/ NO PENSION". The legal question: where does the constitution grant immunity to a judge, it is not article 3, Nor section 2 of the Bill of Rights!
Point of interest: Social peace IS dependant upon Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, NOT upon the words called law, Rather Peace IS dependant upon the INTENT of those laws; BEING FAIR TO LIFE ITSELF! The legal question: The Preamble of the Constitution AGREES, YES OR NO? These words do not release the judge to his/her own discretion, rather conforms the actions of law, the words of law, and the intent of law, to HONOR, RESPECT, AND DISCIPLINE; Not punctuation, not rules of procedure first, not a legal education, BUT an Inalienable and Inherent Right.
Point of Contention: The Judiciary cannot self-regulate or be allowed to review itself, it has failed. Legal question: Does a president impeach himself, it is the same for a judge.
Factual Ramifications:
1a. The citizen must be heard, in a usable statistical format; to assess the credible abilities of a judge, and thereby formulate the need for Public Ethical Review, and or promotion. Legal question: the people have a right? yes or no!
1b. The Judiciary shall be ADEQUATE to the task, the assumption that a court proceeding is fair: cannot be made when conducted by a judge, ILLITERATE, to the realities associated with specific knowledge or events, OR a Jury ILLITERATE to the realities associated with specific knowledge or events, that are pertinent to a FAIR DECISION! Reality will acknowledge, reliable witnesses are expensive and rare, some degree of expertise must be, a burden upon the system of justice to provide. Legal question: An informed decision requires sufficient understanding? yes or no!
1c. The functioning courtroom requires change: a Jury must operate within its MOST RELIABLE ABILITIES. These are; separating each trial, into its factual realities (a decision is made upon each specific issue raised, yes or no. At the summation of courtroom proceedings a detailed formal brief, by the jury, contains Each Decision, an honorable evaluation of the importance of each decision: The jurys final determination as an intregal duty, and the PROBABILITY OF ERROR or formal request for special considerations on appeal). Legal question: Does this impede justice OR is this not, "the right to be informed of the nature and the cause"?
1d. Equal Justice means equal time/equal money! Every trial of importance (possible jail term of more than 90 days), deserves the same treatment. The amount of money/time spent must be the same for both sides. TO BE FAIR, the average cost and time for a specific type of trial must be calculated nationwide, then that amount of time/money shall be spent (BOTH SIDES). Anything beyond 25% of this total WILL NOT BE ALLOWED! Legal question: Is Justice for sale? Equality as seen in all civil rights cases and equal protection as defined in Education laws, strongly indicates protection, requires intervention and disciplinary measures!
1e. An appeals process would be, much better served IF a television presentation were broadcast, of agreed upon content, to the public. Constitutional questions, imprisonment, deserve as much involvement as possible. Legal question: The most effective guard against oppression, by law or by judge, IS Public involvement?
1f. It is WRONG, to make an example of anyone! It is WRONG to make jail a place of leisure or a reward (college education). Let the inmates teach each other, let the inmate work at jobs of value that might not be ecomonical otherwise, such as salvaging old buildings, repairing old applianes, furniture, recycling and reforestation, etc.
IT IS WRONG, to allow dangerous individuals back into society, the RIGHT of the majority IS PEACE, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT. The reward is, punishment for bad behavior, NOT a reduction in time for good behavior. The Inmates themselves KNOW, who is dangerous and who is not, and to a large extent so do the guards. A Vote, by secret ballot will/would send a dangerous person away, elsewhere. This Vote of the inmates themselves Will lengthen or shorten EVERY INMATES' SENTENCE, dependant upon whether the people they let out do well, or hurt someone else. BUT, society must ensure the Freed man/woman HAS a reasonable opportunity and some support. Legal question: The bill of rights section 3, " Instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people....." allows the right to reform?
1g. EQUAL PENALITIES, the reality is simple, an accident is an accident, it is a mistake, a price associated with societies decisions about itself, NOT a crime. Social security is the appropriate avenue for relief, for the victom, personal relief for the family is life insurance (mandatory with more than 1 dependant, a cost associated with social security).
A crime does cost society, and society has a distinct right to re-imbursement, from the person not the family.
An accident associated with "flawed behavior", should have a calculatable cost. The public must vote on and accept those punishments and their well-defined limitations before they become effective.
All people, find JUSTICE TO BE FAIR, as men/women can make it, when we are forewarned, when the punishment is known and agreed upon beforehand, and when the judicial officers are of good character! In one form or another the bill, is sent to the taxpayer for all courtroom proceedings. It is Fair to establish limits. Legal question: Does not amendment 9, "The enumeration in theconstitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." speak directly to this, and defend the statement; Reality not Idolitry (excessive greed), is the foundation upon which the constitution depends.
1h. Changes have occurred in society making the individual vote, Educated as desired, a possibility which extends to the presidential election, and beyond, Abandon the electoral college! Legal question: Is this NOT the true intent of the constitution and Bill of Rights? yes or no!
2. The CONTROVERSY: EQUALITY
Topic: To establish reality as; " A medical emergency is an invasion of the citizen, and as such the description of HOSTAGE applies. The degree of violence being fought with, IS life, health, and future prosperity. The relationship to self-defense is minimal if at all, the common denominator, everyone is at risk!
Do the words of the Declaration of Independence, "...we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Conform duty, to responsibility, to administer authority over such entities as the medical industry, which DO have immediate and dramatic control to remove and deprive any citizen, of their property, without legal consent (the signing of a contract under physical/mental DURESS), nor bound by reasonable law, if any law at all. Is this not a taking; of security, blessings, and privileges of that hostage? Ethical question: would not a maximum percentage of income and property, as payment, per family; the percentage based upon the medical problem be, EQUAL PROTECTION? In this way the rich and the poor are affected in similar ways, sickness or accident is not a chosen freewill debt, how it affects the citizen should be the same for everyone. Those with no money will do community service.
Primary target: The functioning reality of " the business of medicine ". The emergency patient, those at risk of life and limb and health, eatablish a paramount NEED for assistance, beyond a citizens duty, "to do for yourself". This service, this need, this reality DICTATES: There is NO choice, PAY whatever, "they ask"! Failure to do so, can cripple or kill in many cases! Therefore an HONEST Evaluation ofthe term, "Business"; meaning each party has the clear and definite ability, and opportunity to walk away, UNHARMED, simply doesn't exist! This is a one-sided agreement where risk, associated with life and limb, prejudice the outcome and FEAR produces acceptance, irregardless of the cost. A situation akin to extortion!
Primary Objective: To eliminate the concept of "business", from the realm of medicine. To establish Equality, among rich and poor. To define and implement FAIR treatment, including the bill!
The conceptual reality expected to solidify, "a FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD": Breaking up the MONOPOLY that medicine has achieved over the patient, as described within these series of cases, and others. Legal question: True or False; The redress of grievances, amendment 1, allows the orderly resolution of abuses, usurptions and despotism, as can be compiled among the people, and subjects their finding (by vote), to the foundations which form our most valuable laws and principles!
Point of Interest: The doctor/hospital IS merely the final link, in a VERY LONG LINE of people that contribute and describe the realities of medicine such as; The taxpayer who paid for the schooling, buildings, provided the loans, produced the tools, supplied the needs, cleaned the areas, became the experiment, and died from the errors, WITHOUT EXCESS CHARGES!
The Reality of Medicine, It is the rivers of TEARS, that produced the results, the tears of those in desperate NEED, and the tears of those left behind, and left to deal with the poverty of a bad solution. NO amount of Money, can fix/replace a broken body! Legal question: True or False; To be secure, to enjoy the freedom and independence, to obtain and benefit as happiness and safety allow, "a majority of the community hath as indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." section 3, Bill of Rights!
Point of Contention: The freedoms allowed under the Constitution DO NOT extend to situations which can so easily deprive and compel large portions of the population to "in effect" become slaves to the medical industry; such is the extent of billing ABUSE, common today! The rights of the citizenry to provide/produce restraint, having clearly, sufficient common interest, is not only reasonable, but a consequence of government according to the Bill of Rights, section 3, ...."instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people..." Legal question: The actions which challenge the concept of commerce, as applied to the medical industry, divide the question as commerce (subject to every aspect of the law regarding monopolies) OR a service (subject to every aspect of governmental intervention), the peoples' choice!
The Bill of Rights is to be considered, Democracys' INTENT. The preamble of the constitution is to be considered as pre-eminent to all other constitutional documents. Amendment 13 may be considered as a precedent, "to remove the accepted doctrine of the day because of the clear abuse of its citizens, therefore its fair." Amendment 10, "The powers.... are reserved.....to the people".
Factual Ramifications: Consequent to the change from a business to a resource, the issue of ownership arises. The function of society IS: to produce opportunity, NOT control. The method is to allow each separate division to be placed up for BIDS. Someone supplies the building and its structural maintenance for a defined period (10 years). Someone supplies the medicines for a defined period (1 year), and so on.
The realities associated with doctor/nurse/ professional staff, may be structured in the same way as other workers, A BID, to take care of a specific shift, for a year at a time or so. Qualified professionals WILL be granted access to the facilities, BUT they will pay the holders of the bid, a set fee, for usage, per patient. It is up to the public to select, what is in their best interest. Legal question: True or False; The foundation of free enterprise exists in greater measure by this method, than it does currently, CERTAINLY, it does for the public citizen/patient. The functional difference is: "The public shall inherit, MUCH GREATER CONTROL"
2a. In the reality of life, it has become NECESSARY to define, "the miracle of living", as opposed to, "the reality of NATURES' CHOICE". It is a true saying, "someone has to pay". It is also a true saying, "the nation carries an IMMENSE DEBT"!
WE, as a society, one person one vote, MUST CHOOSE, "this/their condition, WE will not pay for"! REMEMBERING, whatsoever is decided, could befall YOU/ME or YOURS/MINE!
These words reflect REALITY, NOT judgement. Let the words which decide be completely clear; NATURE, the possibility of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, has disappeared, and desolation and death await. Legal Statement: The Jurisdiction of man is gone, upon the day nature/the natural process, "completes the work called desolation", irregardless of some minimum morality, ETHICALLY, it is time to go!
2b. WE, as a WORLD, are witness to the development of human intervention in the biological processes. The media in particular, call this "a brave new world". Yet the greatest possibility IS BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, from many avenues, of a type and kind, BEYOND ALL DESCRIPTION!
We, as a world, deserve the opportunity to decide, "will men/women be allowed to proceed", in the ways that cast nature aside. By the methods, beyond any man/womans' or group of men/womens' control. WE, AS A WORLD, ARE AT RISK!
LEGAL STATEMENT: The power to levy war, conclude peace......belongs to the nation, and therefore to its people!
LEGAL REALITY: WHO CAN BRING NATURE BACK, IF EVEN A SINGLE CRITICAL LINK IS DESTROYED! Do not surmise every link is known, they are NOT! It can be seen, Disease itself IS a critical link in survival, and the balance of nature. Disease is the guard or the army, that defends the genetic foundation of LIFE. Those things which alter the critical structure of species development, are sought out and eliminated through disease, being FORCED, not to reproduce! Disease also keeps a variety of specimans availiable of the same basic type, to insure and protect and establish, there is NO "perfect specimen". A change in micro-organisms can attack any, BUT NOT ALL, insuring the species itself shall survive. Disease also controls population explosions, insuring the survival of alternate species, and the environment itself.
These things and more ARE HARSCH REALITIES, BUT contrary to the popular LIE, (man/woman was mutated into existence). Disease keeps mutation from destroying man/woman!
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS 94-1944 from
danville federal court.
94-1944
The Court is asked, for the purpose of a presentment to the people and therefrom a referendum and vote:
Does the citizen OWN an inherent and inalienable RIGHT to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable FAILURES of government officials such as; the current national debt, improperly regulated "saving and loan associations, OUTRIGHT THEFT from the children of this nation and world by producing debts and consuming resources, they the children WILL pay for, the current medical monopoly, and so on!
The QUESTION then becomes, Should Constitutional protection encompass the taxpayer, LIMITING the TOTAL possible percentage of taxation from any/all sources on the individual and his/her income from legitimate sources. This question becomes: IS THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PEOPLE MORE TRUSTWORTHY AND CAPABLE?
DOES THAT INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHT, allow the people, by majority vote, to set prescribed reasonable limits, to which government officials (when WAR, has not been firmly declared) MUST adhere or be impeached and penalized. The question is YES OR NO!
Does the interpretation of Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch V. Maryland 4 wheat 316, 4 L. Ed 579 (1819) in the words:
LET THE END BE LEGITIMATE: (conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards) Meaning the government shall adhere to the common limits established as SELLABLE COLLATERAL before printing its own loan, making the people debtors, AND SO ON!
LET IT BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CONSTITUTION: IS there ANY justifiable cause, apart from fully declared war, forbidding taxpayer protection?
AND ALL THE MEANS APPROPRIATE: DOES the right of the people to vote upon these issues EXIST, within the legal framework of a Redress of grievances?
WHICH ARE PLAINLY ADAPTED TO THAT END: The peaceful exercise of the Democratic form of government (of the people, by the people, and for the people) within the context of one person/one vote according to need, IS THE AMERICAN WAY? The question is YES OR NO!
WHICH ARE NOT PROHIBITED: There is NO direct or indirect statement of prohibition within the Constitutional documents of these RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, except for, the first amendment Redress of Grievances, which specifically allows and invites change, AS DESIRED. (within the limits of what's FAIR, to all the people).
BUT WHICH CONSIST WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION, ARE CONSTITUTIONAL: The spirit of freedom and control of the government, BY THE PEOPLE, are one , within ALL Constitutional Documents, This is the "RIGHT" giving us the American form of government: AGAIN, the people shall decide by vote, what is within their best interest, BUT they shall remember individual freedom as a member of society shall NOT be tampered with!
ITEM #37
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Date: August 12, 1994
Submitted: July 18, 1994
BEFORE: Honorable RICHARD A. POSNER, Chief Judge
Honorable JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
Honorable DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
No. 94-1944
JAMES F. OSTERBUR,
Plaintiff - Appellant
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF ILLINOIS, and COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN/URBANA,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Danville Division
No. 94 C 2060, Harold A. Baker, Judge
Upon consideration of the request for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal filed by the appellant on June 23, 1994, the final order of the District Court, and the record on appeal, this court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and the filing of briefs would not be helpful to the court' s consideration of the issues. Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d 356, 357 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and the judgment of the District Court is summarily AFFIRMED.
ITEM #38
UNITED STATES APPELLATE COURT
APPELLATE BRIEF
RE: 94-1944
This legal decision represented by appeals 94-1943 & 1944 BEGINS in the language of Democracy, which describes freedom through one person/one vote authority. The BASIS of the complaint stems from FAILURE to uphold inherent and inalienable Constitutional RIGHTS. The initiating cases, including a small claims case interprets courtroom decisions are immune from Constitutional law. The later "Court actions", all say, "I don't want to be involved". Fundamental to the concept of American Justice IS, the expected remedy that the "higher Court" WILL administer Justice, Rather than "hide in the bushes"! Reality now shows, to date, the Court cares only about the Idiolatry, "we're perfect, OR wipe it under the rug (hide)"! Such is the Court system of America.
This appeal READS the 1st Amendment, as the HONEST establishment of personal authority through Democratic Actions. Personal authority (FREEDOM) is specifically stated as, "the free exercise of religion and speech and in later amendments the right to vote. As applied to this appeal, the authority to pose the Constitutional questions involved in case 94-2001 & 1944."
Communication of important, relevant, information through the media, is stated as an absolute right, NECESSARY to Society and is protected. As applied, to inform all members of society, the NEED to return to fundamental JUSTICE.
AND the first Amendment reads: the people have an inherent and inalienable right to listen to the words, call for investigation, and EXPECT those officials which represent "government" to remove the cause of the grievances!
Appeal 94-1943 ORIGINATES, in the Courtroom. Appeal 94-1943 involves LEGAL ISSUES, RIGHTS, AND FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW, and as such gives cause to the term, "LEGAL redress of grievances". The list of grievances are clearly established, and it is NOT to much to ask, for the Court to RIGHT ITSELF, by/through adherence to fundamental Justice, as exemplified by the BILL OF RIGHTS, the United States of America Constitution, and the Constitution of the state of Illinois.
The "Court" is allowed the option of determining the boundaries for true public intervention OR may establish the case in its final details before every effort is made to identify, "the problems of the Court, its idolatries, and fundamental change to the precepts of life in society, are in violation of the words, to establish JUSTICE... ONLY DICTATORS, take such actions as, "I am the judge, RATHER than LAW is the JUDGE."
The problems are: The decline in Social, Moral, and Environmental factors within Society is attributable to inequality and effects of "out of control government and survival issues". Inequality means, Justice has been replaced/the Constitutional mandate has been replaced, with personal selfishness. Societal law is about protecting the majority and allowing the minority the freedom to be themselves. Instead the Court has given in to, "I don't care about anything but Me, excusing this as a civil right". It is in fact, a personal "in your own home, so long as you don't hurt anyone else, Right; BUT it is NOT a civil (obligation to society) right.
Personal rights have become idolatries, to the court, bringing the greedy from far and wide. Again the issue is personal rights, AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY, NOT parenting over a spoiled, lazy. child! Our rights are, freedoms within society, which produce peace and harmony and Equality for ALL OF SOCIETY!
The fundamental change from JUSTICE, AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY, to the current: con game of, is every letter in place, who can play the game the best. Has altered the courtroom and its "judge", in many cases, to playing the game as well.
JUSTICE is NOT a game! It is DEFINABLE, as Truth and Fair play where everyone is EQUAL. The purpose is Constitutionally applied as; what is BEST for peace and harmony and equality, as would be acceptable to the majority and within Constitutional boundaries, IS JUSTICE.
This case is about justice and authority within and through Society and therefore represents the changes necessary to produce peace, harmony, and equality.
Agreement is expected, regarding the current registration as one, pro se litigant, representing, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
The Bill of Rights section 3 allows , " that government is instituted for the common benefit, protection , and security of the people, nation, or community...." Appeal 94-1944 begins, in its initiating case, through the court as a controversy over quality of Right of citizenship, a man versus a corporate entity. " Without legal documentation the corporate entity states, I, the plaintiff (in that case), owe money and succeeded in compromising my name and reputation, by soliciting a bill collector". I, the plaintiff, replied I was used, abused, rejected, slandered, injected with drugs I refused, and will NOT pay for such treatment. The court said, "I don't have a law that allows mitigation over property (the money alleged) versus a suitable claim of honest work for honest pay.
The "LACK OF LAW", in the judges words, established this appeal as a LEGAL, Redress of Grievances.
The law is NEEDED, sufficient time has past for the congress to have provided such law. The need has arisen within the court and the excuse "lack of law" is invalid in terms of judicial or jurisdictional DUTY of the court system of the United States.
It is therefore a DUTY OF THE COURT, to protect the citizen: "Section 3, bill of rights, that , when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, .......(the court).......hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Duty follows the line of command, IF the court FAILS, its oath of office, to hold the CONSTITUTION and Bill of Rights foremost in its actions, "then it becomes,.....a majority of the community"........must do so for themselves!
These are Constitutional questions and the court is referred to ARTICLE 6, of the United States Constitution, section 1: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. THAT DEBT/ENGAGEMENT being: THE BILL OF RIGHTS, adopted june 12, 1776, and the other sections which apply, as written, for the benefit of the people and the Nation.
The Oath of Office referred to:
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.
These are the words which establish the court, WITHOUT STRICT ADHERENCE TO, the Court is an illegal entity.
The Court is reminded, these legal issues originate through the "Courts", direct and literal confrontation with and oppression of: "the BILL OF RIGHTS, section 1." This is said and supported in relation to the originating case WHEREIN, the defendant, is charged and convicted of criminal wrongdoing by the judge during his, "for the record decision". This was a simple car warranty case, the subpoena, nor the plaintiff accused the defendant of wrongdoing, (only the car quit after 18 months) the judge altered and abandoned ALL BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LAWS, a citizen depends upon. As he did these things to me, so did he do TO EVERY CITIZEN, that is the meaning of the words, "a violation of societal law". And therefore allows a clear and specific warrant to be assembled and presented to the people, as necessary.
Beyond the first courtroom, each successive court gives rise to the words; Dereliction of Duty, OR an indictment that section 4, of the Bill of Rights, "that no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community....", HAS BEEN CORRUPTED. The reality being each court to date has protected the lower court, NOT THE LAW.
Section 2, of the Bill of Rights, supports and finalizes my/our right to this action.
ITEM #39
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the seventh circuit
RE: 94-1943 & 94-1944
APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
for the common public citizen
APPELLEE-DEFENDANT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
and others
REBUTTAL
of
Motion of the United States Attorney for the central district of Illinois for order of non-involvement due to lack of service in district court.
The plaintiff - appellant reiterates THESE CASES ORIGINATE within the illinois and federal court system. 94-1943 specifically involves Constitutional issues, state and federal. 94-1944 is a 1st amendment case involving charges of monopoly and much more, originating in the court.
The attorney general of the United States of America, IS a sworn officer of the court whose DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY includes: The affirmation that the Constitution SHALL BE UPHELD. noted: there is NO exclusion regarding the size or type of Constitutional issue OR a restriction upon which citizen may bring the charge. The DUTY IS, to insure the constitutional framework of the Justice system is held to the highest standard possible, this is the JOB.
This attempt by the "government", through this motion of non-involvement, having examined case 94-2001 & 94-2060 is hereby questioned: The possibility of a failure to comprehend the constitutionality of the issues, as has arisen within the Illinois and federal court system, simply does NOT exist.
The failure of the attorney generals office to "due its duty", to ascertain whether the charge is legitimate, borders on an "impeach able offense". This is the job, to insure constitutional adherence to a reasonable standard.
Therefore acknowledgment IS REQUIRED, that the issues represented by case 94-1943 & 94-1944 ESTABLISHES a duty to investigate, and take subsequent action by the attorney generals office.
Failure to serve, as the "government" suggests at this time, IS MITIGATED, by the U.S.C.A. seventh circuit; circuit rule 3(b) notice , dated april 29,1994. "file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauper is with the district court", which this appellant has done, and, "the mere filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauper is does NOT meet this requirement; an order granting such a motion will HAVE to be entered." THEREFORE it can only be read, the issue of MONEY must be resolved before the appeal may proceed, IN ANY MANNER.
Further the subpoena's necessary to be served, through the court, represent an additional expense which granting of the motion, IN FORMA PAUPER IS, entitles this appellant-plaintiff to WAIVE. The subpoena therefore cannot be sent until the motion is granted or denied. Since the court holds the money, it is the court which determines when the subpoena's will be sent (by releasing the money).
The court has plainly described the cases as at a standstill, until the money comes.
An initial investigative question could be, "HOW could a FORMAL dismissal in forma pauper is, by a federal court be construed as anything less, by an appeals court?" The court itself has withheld service upon the defendant-appellee.
An informal abbreviation of the Constitution, for the purpose of describing "official duty", might read: To protect the members of this society from unreasonable, irresponsible, actions resulting in an assault on FREEDOMS and/or LIBERTY, within society. These cases are the result of unreasonable and irresponsible actions.
The United States of America and specifically the attorney generals office IS distinctly and unequivocally involved (by reason of official duty) within all constitutionally derived issues originating within the Justice system of America!
The Appellant respectfully requests this motion be DENIED.
BE IT NOTED: Request was made to the appeals court for the proper address to which a preliminary "supine", could be made, (I, am a pro se litigant) to which the court replied, "the U.S.C.A. does not issue subpoenas."
consequently NO address meant no information until the court responded.
Upon receipt of the appellant jurisdictional statement stamped and accepted by the court as of may 17,1994 copies of this statement was submitted to the law firm thomas, mamer, & haughey Champaign IL for Covenant Medical Center, and to the regional office of the attorney general at Champaign, IL as indicated. (prior to receipt of the motion from the state of IL). In a firm and deliberate attempt to inform and adhere to a satisfactory/reasonable level of procedure while the, in forma pauper is, status brought other activities to a standstill.
ITEM #40
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3 (b) NOTICE
DATE: APRIL 28, 1994
RE: Osterbur, James F. V. USA
appeal No.: 94-1944
District court no: 94-c-2060
TO James F. Osterbur
Circuit rule 3 (b) empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen days of the docketing of the appeal. This appeal was docketed on 4/26/94. The district court has indicated that as of 4/21/94 the docket fee has not been paid. Depending on the circumstances, you must do one of the following:
1. Pay the required $100. docketing fee Plus $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the district court clerk., if you have not already done so. The court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records.
2. File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the district court. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, in the form of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the appellant(s).
If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the appeal will be dismissed.
PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FILE the appellants brief in this appeal until either the docketing fee has been paid or leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis has been granted. The clerk's office is not authorized to file any party's brief until one or the other of the above requirements has been met. Briefs sent before then will be returned. The mere filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis does not meet this requirement; an order granting such a motion will have had to be entered.
(2071-120393
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO IL 60604
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE CIRCUIT RULE 3 (C) JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
DATED MAY 5, 1994
BY THE COURT
NO 94-1944
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF ILL, AND COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN/ URBANA
DEFENDANTS/ APPELLEE
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
Appeal from the United States District court for the central district of Ill, Danville division no. 94-2060, Harold A. Baker judge
circuit rule 3 (c) directs the appellant to file and serve a jurisdictional statement, which meets the requirements of circuit rule 28 b, with the clerk of the district court at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal or with the clerk of this court within seven days of filing the notice of appeal.
Your rule 3(c) jurisdictional statement has not been filed to date, accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the appellant file this overdue jurisdictional statement with the clerk of this court within fourteen days (14) of the date of this order. Failure to do so will result in a one hundred dollar ($100.00) fine and / or dismissal of this appeal.
NOTE: please caption document "circuit rule 3 (c) JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT". The filing of a "jurisdictional memorandum" which may have been specifically ordered by the court does not satisfy your obligation under circuit rule 3(c).
Richard N. Cox.
Rosalyn B. Kaplan
retyped
RE 94-1944 & 94-1944
from JAMES F. OSTERBUR
YOUR letter dated April 29, 1994 circuit rule 3 (b) notice says, "DO NOT attempt to file the appellant brief until fee is paid or forma pauperis is granted." Forma pauperis is still in limbo!
retyped for electronic transfer space
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE
SEVENTH CIRCUIT
NO 94-1944
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN URBANA
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
appeal from the United states district court central district of IL, Danville division
NO. 94-c-2060 Harold A. Baker, united states district judge
MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS FOR ORDER OF NON-INVOLVEMENT
DUE TO LACK OF SERVICE IN DISTRICT COURT
Frances C. Hulin, United States Attorney for the central district of Ill, by David H. Hoff, assistant United States attorney, requests that this court enter an order of non-involvement due to the fact that no agency or department on behalf of the united states of america was served with process in the district court.
Since no federal agency, department, or employee was served with process, and since no federal agency, department or employee participated in the proceedings before the district court, the united states of america should not be a party to this appeal.
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of may 1994
Frances C. Hulin
United states attorney
United States Attorney
14 towne centre
2 E. Main st
Danville, IL 61832
217/ 446-8546
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, IL 60604
NO APPELLEE BRIEF TO BE FILED
DATE MAY 24, 1994
BY THE COURT
NO. 94-1944
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN/ URBANA
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
appeal from the united states district court for the central district of IL, Danville division NO. 94-2060 Harold A. Baker Judge
` The united states attorney for the central district of IL has advised this court on 5/24/94 that an appellee was not served with process in the district court and will not be proceeding in this appeal. Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED that this appeal will be submitted for decision without the filing of a brief by the appellees.
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, IL 60604
DATED MAY 26, 1994
BY THE COURT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN/ URBANA
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
NO. 94-C- 2060
appeal from the united states district court for the central district of Illinois, danville division/ Harold A. Baker, Judge
Upon consideration of the REBUTTAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF NON-INVOLVEMENT, DATED MAY 17, 1994 filed 5/25/94 by the pro se appellant, which the court construes as a motion to reconsider the order of 5/20/94
IT IS ORDERED, that the motion to reconsider is DENIED.
RETYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, IL 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B) NOTICE
DATED MAY 31, 1994
NO. 94-1944
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
STATE OF ILL
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN/ URBANA
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
TO JAMES F. OSTERBUR
appeal from the united states district court, for the central division of ILL, Danville division no 94-c-2060 harold a baker Judge
This court's records indicate that on 5/25/94 the district court denied your motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS YOU MUST EITHER:
1. pay the required $100 docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 filing fee (105 total) to the district court clerk. the court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records.
2. File a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the court of appeals. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit in the form of a sworn statement listing your assets and income.
[was done]
IF ONE OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE LISTED ABOVE, YOUR CASE WILL BE DISMISSED, PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B).
retyped for electronic transfer space
NO. 94-1944
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
plaintiff/ appellant
V.
U.S.A. Et. al.
Defendants
on appeal from the united states district court for the central district of IL Danville division
no. 94-c-2060 Harold A. Baker judge presiding
MOTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ORDER OF NON-INVOLVEMENT DUE TO LACK OF SERVICE IN THE TRIAL COURT
Now come the defendants, all state defendants, by and through their attorney ROLAND W. BURRIS, attorney general of the state of ill, and hereby move this court for an order of non-involvement by these defendants in this appeal. They have not been served with summons and , therefore are not involved in this case. Since these persons, named as defendants are not parties to this appeal, the undersigned respectfully requests that Roland W. Burris, the attorney general of Ill, and all assistant attorneys general be deleted as counsel.
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, IL 60604
DATED JUNE 23, 1994
BY THE COURT
NO 94-1944
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ILL
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER OF CHAMPAIGN/ URBANA
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
appeal from the united states district court for the central district of Ill, Danville division no 94-c-2060 Harold A Baker Judge
The court on its own motion, ORDERS that briefing is SUSPENDED pending a ruling on appellants motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
ITEM #41
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
RE: 94-1943 & 94-1944
PLAINTIFF: JAMES F. OSTERBUR
FOR THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ILLINOIS
THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
represented by: COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
1400 W. PARK
URBANA, IL 61801
MEMORANDUM AND APPELLATE BRIEF
section 2
THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
CIVIL AUTHORITY THROUGH ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE
DEFINING A BEGINNING TO THE LEGAL TERM, "REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES".
The concept of democratic freedom believes; together WE/I can choose. We believe that the orderly, one person/one vote, can effectively distribute the important, "control of our lives", to ourselves, "WE, the majority". We believe that the protection of the individual IS SECURED by the proper words, "established Constitutional boundaries, specifically included, IS, the Bill of Rights". WE believe LAW that is HONEST AND TRUE, protects our Individual assertion, "I am EQUAL/WE are EQUAL". WE believe LAW protects our Society ONLY, when the majority understand and are familiar, with the court, being able to contest, "I/WE KNOW OUR RIGHTS". We believe the TRUE purpose of military force, IS to "bring PEACE to ourselves, and through the combined efforts of MANY NATIONS, to bring peace on EARTH," this DOES NOT include an arms race, NOR assembling the methods to destroy the Earth. We believe the political process IS to produce OVERSEER'S, capable of maintaining and improving Society, as the people choose, NOT dictators who choose for us. We believe the people have a right to control government DEBT. We believe the people, have a right to FAIR APPRAIZEL (as an example, for medical service, meaning a percentage of income) IS EQUALITY, in situations where free enterprise dosen't work, (insurance protects only the rich). We believe Court Judgements MUST BE UNIFORM, the same penalty for the same crime, MAKE NO "examples of men/women or corporations". We believe, IF the "government" fails, such as with the current debt situation, the people MUST DEMAND and EXPECT a "legal redress of grievances within the Court", and produce their own solution, within constitutional boundaries.
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
We, the People, believe WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE, the People, believe WE CAN COMBINE FREEDOM WITH AUTHORITY, one person/one vote, FOR ALL!
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
Communication, allows this freedom, giving access and information to the majority, therefore the old way, "of voting for someone to vote for Me", is of limited value.
The definitive postion of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
The Constitution defines and allows TRUE Democracy, as the first Amendment, and has established a, "LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES", in its framework.
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
The RIGHT, of the PEOPLE, to assess their situation and peacefully demand change IS FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRACY!
FUNDAMENTAL to the concept of DEMOCRACY is change, procurable as a Flexible description of: "How to accomplish the task", (through many voices; the congress in conjunction with the people).
BUT, a RIGID: "What task shall be accomplished" (WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES)
THIS CASE SEEKS THE OPTIMUM POTENTIAL FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTIONS (OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE) WHICH IS: "THE RIGHT OF VETO OVER THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, that fail the majority perception of whats good for the Country, within Constitutional boundaries!
This case recognizes an errant fundamental discrepancy within current actions of government, these being out of control debt, a failure of equal protection, a failure of fundamental justice, and a lack of constitutional adherence within reasonable principles as defined, by the Bill of Rights!
This case therefore seeks to Re-instate a suitable description and vitality to the words of the first Amendment, initiating the BASIC DEMOCRATIC RIGHT, of informed (VERIFIED BY THE COURT) VETO POWER TO THE PEOPLE, " a Legal redress of grievances!"
This case also seeks to examine fundamental constitutional principles gone astray and demand CORRECTIONS BE MADE!
This case also seeks to inquire of the Court the fundamental Boundaries fo LIFE in human terms, NOT medical terms, NOT greed or charity, Rather Truth, Equality, and Fair Play.
The Congress has Not dealt successfully, IS experiencing difficulty even now, and the Court IS distinctly in need of direction DUE TO the lack of law: The question WILL BE asked to define fundamental JUSTICE, as an appropriate extention of the expertise associated with the Court. The plaintiff suggests: Justice is the receipt of Fair (EQUAL) treatment, to every person, irregardless of prejudice, pre-conceived idea's, or realities unimportant to a specific event or occurrence.
The Court is reminded the law is needed, and past due!
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question: Can the business of medicine be considered a FREE ENTERPRISE SITUATION, OR does medical need establish an inherent MONOPOLY over the patient?
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question: Biologically WE ARE THE SAME; Medically we bleed and are in pain, THE SAME; Physically, we all have the SAME NEEDS: THEREFORE Financially, WE ARE EQUAL, with regard to medical billing payments, WHEN, a percentage of income or community work (if unable to pay) is Required. The question is: YES OR NO (within the specific realities of a not free enterprise, we are the same, SITUATION)?
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
Examined as a HOSTAGE SITUATION, wherein the freedoms and liberties associated with the physical body, its capacity to seek LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, are fundamentally threatened; examines the first Amendment Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press, as the ONLY BULWARK capable of protecting the people, in their MOST URGENT time of need. FULL DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED! The question is YES OR NO?
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
At what point does a man/womans' authority over their own actions become subject to the invasion of law? The essential question being in two parts: IS SUICIDE, a Fundamental Right? (irregardless of its consequences).
When DO actions which physically harm NO ONE ELSE, become less than, a personal Freedom and Liberty? (personal freedom DEMANDS acceptance of the risk and liability)
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
Does the failure of the government, to protect the citizen from medical billing improprieties, from abuse of the NOT FOR PROFIT status, from profiteering, and enormous debt, FINALLY DEMAND: The Constitutional protection (limiting the total possible percentage of taxing from any/all sources of individual income) of the taxpayer, when war has NOT been FIRMLY declared.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
RE: 94-1943 & 94-1944
PLAINTIFF: JAMES F. OSTERBUR
FOR THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF ILLINOIS
THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
represented by: COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
1400 W. PARK
URBANA, IL 61801
MEMORANDUM AND APPELLATE BRIEF
section 2
THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
CIVIL AUTHORITY THROUGH ONE PERSON/ONE VOTE
DEFINING A BEGINNING TO THE LEGAL TERM, "REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES".
The concept of democratic freedom believes; together WE/I can choose. We believe that the orderly, one person/one vote, can effectively distribute the important, "control of our lives", to ourselves, "WE, the majority". We believe that the protection of the individual IS SECURED by the proper words, "established Constitutional boundaries, specifically included, IS, the Bill of Rights". WE believe LAW that is HONEST AND TRUE, protects our Individual assertion, "I am EQUAL/WE are EQUAL". WE believe LAW protects our Society ONLY, when the majority understand and are familiar, with the court, being able to contest, "I/WE KNOW OUR RIGHTS". We believe the TRUE purpose of military force, IS to "bring PEACE to ourselves, and through the combined efforts of MANY NATIONS, to bring peace on EARTH," this DOES NOT include an arms race, NOR assembling the methods to destroy the Earth. We believe the political process IS to produce OVERSEER'S, capable of maintaining and improving Society, as the people choose, NOT dictators who choose for us. We believe the people have a right to control government DEBT. We believe the people, have a right to FAIR APPRAISAL (as an example, for medical service, meaning a percentage of income) IS EQUALITY, in situations where free enterprise doesn't work, (insurance protects only the rich). We believe Court Judgements MUST BE UNIFORM, the same penalty for the same crime, MAKE NO "examples of men/women or corporations". We believe, IF the "government" fails, such as with the current debt situation, the people MUST DEMAND and EXPECT a "legal redress of grievances within the Court", and produce their own solution, within constitutional boundaries.
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
We, the People, believe WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE, the People, believe WE CAN COMBINE FREEDOM WITH AUTHORITY, one person/one vote, FOR ALL!
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
Communication, allows this freedom, giving access and information to the majority, therefore the old way, "of voting for someone to vote for Me", is of limited value.
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
The Constitution defines and allows TRUE Democracy, as the first Amendment, and has established a, "LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES", in its framework.
The definitive position of the court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
The RIGHT, of the PEOPLE, to assess their situation and peacefully demand change IS FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRACY!
FUNDAMENTAL to the concept of DEMOCRACY is change, procurable as a Flexible description of: "How to accomplish the task", (through many voices; the congress in conjunction with the people).
BUT, a RIGID: "What task shall be accomplished" (WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDARIES)
THIS CASE SEEKS THE OPTIMUM POTENTIAL FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTIONS (OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE) WHICH IS: "THE RIGHT OF VETO OVER THE ACTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, that fail the majority perception of what's good for the Country, within Constitutional boundaries!
This case recognizes an errant fundamental discrepancy within current actions of government, these being out of control debt, a failure of equal protection, a failure of fundamental justice, and a lack of constitutional adherence within reasonable principles as defined, by the Bill of Rights!
This case therefore seeks to Re-instate a suitable description and vitality to the words of the first Amendment, initiating the BASIC DEMOCRATIC RIGHT, of informed (VERIFIED BY THE COURT) VETO POWER TO THE PEOPLE, " a Legal redress of grievances!"
This case also seeks to examine fundamental constitutional principles gone astray and demand CORRECTIONS BE MADE!
This case also seeks to inquire of the Court the fundamental Boundaries fo LIFE in human terms, NOT medical terms, NOT greed or charity, Rather Truth, Equality, and Fair Play.
The Congress has Not dealt successfully, IS experiencing difficulty even now, and the Court IS distinctly in need of direction DUE TO the lack of law: The question WILL BE asked to define fundamental JUSTICE, as an appropriate extension of the expertise associated with the Court. The plaintiff suggests: Justice is the receipt of Fair (EQUAL) treatment, to every person, irregardless of prejudice, pre-conceived idea's, or realities unimportant to a specific event or occurrence.
The Court is reminded the law is needed, and past due!
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question: Can the business of medicine be considered a FREE ENTERPRISE SITUATION, OR does medical need establish an inherent MONOPOLY over the patient?
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question: Biologically WE ARE THE SAME; Medically we bleed and are in pain, THE SAME; Physically, we all have the SAME NEEDS: THEREFORE Financially, WE ARE EQUAL, with regard to medical billing payments, WHEN, a percentage of income or community work (if unable to pay) is Required. The question is: YES OR NO (within the specific realities of a not free enterprise, we are the same, SITUATION)?
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
Examined as a HOSTAGE SITUATION, wherein the freedoms and liberties associated with the physical body, its capacity to seek LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, are fundamentally threatened; examines the first Amendment Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press, as the ONLY BULWARK capable of protecting the people, in their MOST URGENT time of need. FULL DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED! The question is YES OR NO?
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
At what point does a man/womans' authority over their own actions become subject to the invasion of law? The essential question being in two parts: IS SUICIDE, a Fundamental Right? (irregardless of its consequences).
When DO actions which physically harm NO ONE ELSE, become less than, a personal Freedom and Liberty? (personal freedom DEMANDS acceptance of the risk and liability)
The definitive position of the Court will BE REQUIRED, within the crucial question:
Does the failure of the government, to protect the citizen from medical billing improprieties, from abuse of the NOT FOR PROFIT status, from profiteering, and enormous debt, FINALLY DEMAND: The Constitutional protection (limiting the total possible percentage of taxing from any/all sources of individual income) of the taxpayer, when war has NOT been FIRMLY declared.
UNITED STATES APPELLATE COURT
APPELLATE BRIEF
RE: 94-1944
This legal decision represented by appeals 94-1943 & 1944 BEGINS in the language of Democracy, which describes freedom through one person/one vote authority. The BASIS of the complaint stems from FAILURE to uphold inherent and inalienable Constitutional RIGHTS. The initiating cases, including a small claims case interprets courtroom decisions are immune from Constitutional law. The later "Court actions", all say, "I don't want to be involved". Fundamental to the concept of American Justice IS, the expected remedy that the "higher Court" WILL administer Justice, Rather than "hide in the bushes"! Reality now shows, to date, the Court cares only about the Idiolatry, "we're perfect, OR wipe it under the rug (hide)"! Such is the Court system of America.
This appeal READS the 1st Amendment, as the HONEST establishment of personal authority through Democratic Actions. Personal authority (FREEDOM) is specifically stated as, "the free exercise of religion and speech and in later amendments the right to vote. As applied to this appeal, the authority to pose the Constitutional questions involved in case 94-2001 & 1944."
Communication of important, relevant, information through the media, is stated as an absolute right, NECESSARY to Society and is protected. As applied, to inform all members of society, the NEED to return to fundamental JUSTICE.
AND the first Amendment reads: the people have an inherent and inalienable right to listen to the words, call for investigation, and EXPECT those officials which represent "government" to remove the cause of the grievances!
Appeal 94-1943 ORIGINATES, in the Courtroom. Appeal 94-1943 involves LEGAL ISSUES, RIGHTS, AND FUNDAMENTALS OF LAW, and as such gives cause to the term, "LEGAL redress of grievances". The list of grievances are clearly established, and it is NOT to much to ask, for the Court to RIGHT ITSELF, by/through adherence to fundamental Justice, as exemplified by the BILL OF RIGHTS, the United States of America Constitution, and the Constitution of the state of Illinois.
The "Court" is allowed the option of determining the boundaries for true public intervention OR may establish the case in its final details before every effort is made to identify, "the problems of the Court, its idolatries, and fundamental change to the precepts of life in society, are in violation of the words, to establish JUSTICE... ONLY DICTATORS, take such actions as, "I am the judge, RATHER than LAW is the JUDGE."
The problems are: The decline in Social, Moral, and Environmental factors within Society is attributable to inequality and effects of "out of control government and survival issues". Inequality means, Justice has been replaced/the Constitutional mandate has been replaced, with personal selfishness. Societal law is about protecting the majority and allowing the minority the freedom to be themselves. Instead the Court has given in to, "I don't care about anything but Me, excusing this as a civil right". It is in fact, a personal "in your own home, so long as you don't hurt anyone else, Right; BUT it is NOT a civil (obligation to society) right.
Personal rights have become idolatries, to the court, bringing the greedy from far and wide. Again the issue is personal rights, AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY, NOT parenting over a spoiled, lazy. child! Our rights are, freedoms within society, which produce peace and harmony and Equality for ALL OF SOCIETY!
The fundamental change from JUSTICE, AS A MEMBER OF SOCIETY, to the current: con game of, is every letter in place, who can play the game the best. Has altered the courtroom and its "judge", in many cases, to playing the game as well.
JUSTICE is NOT a game! It is DEFINABLE, as Truth and Fair play where everyone is EQUAL. The purpose is Constitutionally applied as; what's BEST for peace and harmony and equality, as would be acceptable to the majority and within Constitutional boundaries, IS JUSTICE.
This case is about justice and authority within and through Society and therefore represents the changes necessary to produce peace, harmony, and equality.
Argument is expected, regarding the current registration as one, pro se litigant, representing, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
The Bill of Rights section 3 allows , " that government is instituted for the common benefit, protection , and security of the people, nation, or community...." Appeal 94-1944 begins, in its initiating case, through the court as a controversy over quality of Right of citizenship, a man versus a corporate entity. " Without legal documentation the corporate entity states, I, the plaintiff (in that case), owe money and succeeded in compromising my name and reputation, by soliciting a bill collector". I, the plaintiff, replied I was used, abused, rejected, slandered, injected with drugs I refused, and will NOT pay for such treatment. The court said, "I don't have a law that allows mitigation over property (the money alleged) versus a suitable claim of honest work for honest pay.
The "LACK OF LAW", in the judges words, established this appeal as a LEGAL, Redress of Grievances.
The law is NEEDED, sufficient time has past for the congress to have provided such law. The need has arisen within the court and the excuse "lack of law" is invalid in terms of judicial or jurisdictional DUTY of the court system of the United States.
It is therefore a DUTY OF THE COURT, to protect the citizen: "Section 3, bill of rights, that , when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, .......(the court).......hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
Duty follows the line of command, IF the court FAILS, its oath of office, to hold the CONSTITUTION and Bill of Rights foremost in its actions, "then it becomes,.....a majority of the community"........must do so for themselves!
These are Constitutional questions and the court is referred to ARTICLE 6, of the United States Constitution, section 1: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. THAT DEBT/ENGAGEMENT being: THE BILL OF RIGHTS, adopted june 12, 1776, and the other sections which apply, as written, for the benefit of the people and the Nation.
The Oath of Office referred to:
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.
These are the words which establish the court, WITHOUT STRICT ADHERENCE TO, the Court is an illegal entity.
The Court is reminded, these legal issues originate through the "Courts", direct and literal confrontation with and oppression of: "the BILL OF RIGHTS, section 1." This is said and supported in relation to the originating case WHEREIN, the defendant, is charged and convicted of criminal wrongdoing by the judge during his, "for the record decision". This was a simple car warranty case, the subpoena, nor the plaintiff accused the defendant of wrongdoing, (only the car quit after 18 months) the judge altered and abandoned ALL BASIC FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LAWS, a citizen depends upon. As he did these things to me, so did he do TO EVERY CITIZEN, that is the meaning of the words, "a violation of societal law". And therefore allows a clear and specific warrant to be assembled and presented to the people, as necessary.
Beyond the first courtroom, each successive court gives rise to the words; Dereliction of Duty, OR an indictment that section 4, of the Bill of Rights, "that no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community....", HAS BEEN CORRUPTED. The reality being each court to date has protected the lower court, NOT THE LAW.
Section 2, of the Bill of Rights, supports and finalizes my/our right to this action.
ITEM #43
A PEACEFUL LIBERTY
These descriptions illustrate FREEDOMS, RIGHTS, AND LAWS, of the United States of America, called INHERENT AND INALIENABLE, that are found to be "AT RISK, soon to be completely lost".
LAW, divides human participation in social behaviors as guilty, innocent, or justifiable cause. Law removes the "human factor" to become SIMPLE RELATIONSHIPS of agreed upon RIGHT OR WRONG! HE/SHE who sits as judge has NO AUTHORITY to alter, change, or deny the LAW. The record will prove in all but one case, through the many courts of each trial, the "judge" HAS become the ruler, NOT mediator, and therefore the law has become NO more than, "a whim and a prejudice".
The words are understandable, the Realities are proven, and the need for discipline of the Judicial system is apparent
YOU CAN JOIN!
In the words of the fourteenth amendment, the validity of the public debt......authorized by law......shall not be questioned! Held as an obligation, these words DO APPLY to the integrity and the honor and the courage of the people, and speak volumes about how the "government shall be RUN", by our employees, FOR US, AND OUR NEEDS! The public debt in this case IS
INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
THE DEBTOR, IS THE COURT, AND THOSE IN CHARGE OF THE COURT!
THIS CASE ALSO ALLOWS
A TRUE FREEDOM,
The choice IS to control, as a NATION, the medical Realities of this day Or, allow a medical monopoly to separate the nation into "rich or poor, in medical service, to a MUCH greater degree than is current", the money WILL run out! MONEY IS: the TIME, EFFORT, and resource of the individual. It IS NOT medicine, or a building, or a tool (these are the things men/women do with their time and effort and resource). RATHER it represents, "a person to person agreement" that this exchange is FAIR! "The professional", is NO MORE, "man or woman" than you or me and therefore his/her time (MONEY) should represent REALITY, NOT the greed of a spoiled child! How would a doctor preform surgery, without lights, tools, medicines, ETC: the builder, the tradesman, the factory worker, the janitor, and MANY MORE, are all indispensible, and do come first. WE ARE EQUAL.
This UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE allows the first amendment, Redress of Grievances, to confine and control through popular vote, our environment, OUR NATION, within Constitutional guidelines. This case, and the record soon to follow, confirm the RIGHT IS OURS, BY LAW, AND BY THE TRUE DEFINITION OF LIBERTY!
This is a REAL WORLD LEGAL CASE, defined by LAW (the words OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES CHOSEN AS MEMORANDUM, and exist within the true INTENT, of JUSTICE, FREEDOM, AND EQUALITY FOR ALL, as IS clearly declared in the written words, and IS for the PEOPLE.
ONLY, DEMOCRACY-IN-ACTION, (your participation) can return the court to truth and justice, as well as; correct a prevalent social problem, AND OPEN THE DOOR TO TRUE DEMOCRACY, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people! SUCH IS THE ACTUAL REALITY, of a peoples' redress of AUTHORITY!
Authority and truth will reveal irregardless of the courts' opinion, whose nation this is.
Read the case at E-mail: and talk, consider, and act! This is OUR PLEADING, IF YOU WANT IT TO BE.
CHOOSE!
ITEM #44
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
DATED AUGUST 12, 1994
BEFORE Richard A. Posner, chief judge
John L. Coffey, circuit judge
Daniel A. Manion, circuit judge
No. 94-1944
James F. Osterbur
plaintiff/ appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF IL, AND COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER of Champaign/ Urbana.
Defendants/appellees
Appeal from the United States district court for the central district of Il, Danville division
No. 94-c-2060, Harold A. Baker, judge
Upon consideration of the request for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal filed by the appellant on June 23, 1994, the final order of the district court, and the record on appeal, this court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and the filing of briefs would not be helpful to the court's consideration of the issues. Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F. 2d 356, 357 (7th circuit, 1989) (per curiam).
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and the judgment of the district court is summarily AFFIRMED.
(1119-110293)
[FROM ME: not only does the court quote itself, the issues raised are about inherent right and contractual demand as it regards the medical profession and its right to "bill as they please"/ the demand is "EARN the money, & respect the citizen". The court replies with Mather v. Village of Mundelein, a favorite of theirs: this case is about christmas ornaments on the village property.
ITEM #45 FEDERAL APPEALS CASE 94-1943 [the
files are not in order]
1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT
FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
The argument arises: WHO, HAS THE RIGHT to ask/why and where?
The first Amendment is quite clear: Congress shall make NO LAW.......prohibiting....or abridging the freedom of ......or the Right of......a redress of grievances.
The first Amendment is again quite clear: In whose freedom....."the people".....and who/what is restricted/required....."the government".
The third Article of the Constitution, is quite clear about legal issues/responsibilities: "section 1, The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts....established". and section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and the laws of the United States..."
This petition draws from the initiating cases 94-2001 & 94-2060 to establish: THESE LEGAL GRIEVANCES!
let the facts be submitted:
The court IS NOT IMMUNE, it is established to PRODUCE, adequate or better behavior within Society, it is NOT separate, or entitled to exclusive privileges, BUT an example of a higher ideal! The court fails in these cases.
The court IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, IF it cannot understand, complaints as arise from, "the common public citizen", in simple language! The court fails in these cases.
The court IS NOT in compliance with Constitutional doctrine as defined by: WE THE PEOPLE......"IF the people cannot establish their authority by a legal redress of grievances"........IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION....."IF the fundamental values supplied by the Bill of Rights, FAIL to instruct"........ESTABLISH JUSTICE......."IF the formality of court proceedings demonstrates, a complete disregard for the outcome or allows EASY ABUSE of the citizenry"....INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY........"IF the court fails to uphold JUSTICE (the intent of the Law, as directed through the Bill of Rights)..........PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE........"IF the people are forced to PURCHASE justice"...........PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.........."IF the Law can become entangled (millions of words are TOO MANY)......AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY,........."IF liberty FAILS the people, allowing one group supremacy over the majority, allows pillaging of resources, allows the betrayal of the public trust in its most basic social foundation, allows inherent and inalienable rights to be possessions stolen."
Are these the things ordained and established by the American Constitution? WHOSE COUNTRY IS THIS?
The civil Authority CANNOT be demonstrated upon a single complaint. The public issues arise in connection with VALID, REASONABLE, social disputes. The authority called civil power BEGINS:
When the people join.
when the people discuss relevant expectations.
when the people Watch/Listen and react.
when the people define their decision.
when the people explain how far the boundary extends.
when the people specify, the penalty.
AND IS COMPLETE
when the people enforce their decision through law; CLEARLY visible and understandable to the majority.
Throughout the legal cases represented by Federal case 94-2001 & 94-2060 EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT, to communicate the Realities involved, has been made; yet the Court says, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND"!
ITEM #46
1
94-1943
The Societal Journey into a legal redress of Grievances begins:
It is a FACT, that each Societal Economy is based upon only 2 factors: The first is, "I" have the RIGHT of access to such Resources as can be recognized; the second, "I" have the RIGHT of access, to the methods and processes and thoughts necessary to utilize those resources to the best of my ability.
Capitalism has proven the best , at distributing these facts to the majority; "Times however have changed. The Realities of, Resource depletion, Pollution, and over population, DO now suggest Capitalism SHOULD BE slightly altered! As a scarcity of all things, begins to become apparent; SOCIETY can no longer afford unrestrained GREED. Capitalism must therefore be RESTRICTED as to: Maximum income per year (irregardless of any other factor) of any/every individual. That amount could be, no more than the president of the United States. The result of this restriction is expected to be: MORE FOR THE REST,.............................!
Money is man kinds description of time & energy & expertise. Our time is EQUAL (person to person) for each work, IT IS OUR LIVES! Our Energy DOES NOT equal or exceed two or three other average workers! Our Expertise is largely inherited and therefore can be counted, only within the context of time and energy!
The Restriction applied to maximum income per year, per individual, to be voted upon and chosen by the majority, DOES NOT represent a Constitutional prohibition RATHER Amendment 9 says it best: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained BY THE PEOPLE: and enjoins the Constitutional Mandates: 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!
MEMORANDUM as necessary for this presentment
Humanity SEEKS FREEDOM, measuring Individual Freedom through its Societies, each looking to achieve and accumulate before other men/women, and nations. This process Redefines Freedom as Liberty for some, "Slavery" for others (the working poor).
Freedom achieved, grants every citizen a true opportunity to establish Society within their own authority (one person /.one vote). THEREFORE, when government officials create a public danger. The possibility of forcing more and more people into economic slavery, due to a wide variety of factors; for example, the national debt, improper banking policies that led to S & L bailouts, the medical monopoly, ETC.
It therefore becomes OUR RIGHT to inquire of the Constitutional Basis of this presentment, PRIOR to public evaluation.
The Legal means to obtain and enforce a, REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, "from the government", BECOMES the peoples Authority, altering or abolishing those things as NECESSARY, to substantiate and/ or delineate Freedom and Equality, within Constitutional limits, for us all!
Returning to the issue being presented: This concept of shared responsibility needs NO explanation, among the majority, (WAR, has established this).
The concept of shared Economic responsibility, through fundamental Democracy, WITHOUT altering capitalism, in any manner, Establishes people before, "truly excessive" greed.
The agreement begins, "the rich provide jobs", reality recognized is, "the rich/ powerful pay as little as possible and share virtually nothing". This agreement of jobs, WILL BE MITIGATED, through a program of, "teach and support other people in the nation/ community," and the people will allow an increase in your salary, beyond the established limit; according to the value of your work, for others and therefore the Nation.
The QUESTION TO THE COURT: for the purpose of this presentment, DOES THE DEMAND FOR EQUALITY, within Constitutional documents, and supported by the fight for Equality designated as the Civil War, (Slavery was the focal point, But Equality, described the Right, the Wrong, and the WHY) apply ? DO these , Establish the Words of the Declaration of Independence: ......."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (women) are created EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...........
The Spirit (the purpose chosen above selfishness, or fears, or righteousness) of these words is clearly to live as each would choose, within the boundaries of honest work equals honest pay, honorable treatment of others establishes honorable treatment for you, and WE WILL fight together, WHEN WE MUST!
Our Destiny as a Nation IS INTENDED TO BE: (Declaration of Independence).........."and of right ought to be, free and independent............and for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, WE mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor!
Do these words then, assemble and Enable the people, as a majority, to chart their own destiny: VOTE UPON THE ISSUES (as desired) THEMSELVES; within Constitutional limits, A VETO POWER, called Democratic Authority!
The question then established is: WHO, controls the destiny of this Nation?
It is my RIGHT to inquire of the Constitutional Basis of this presentment PRIOR to public evaluation. It is in this manner that the words associated with:
DeJonge V. Oregon 299 U.S. 353, 57 S. CT. 255, 81 L. ED. 278 (1937) ........"to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the SECURITY of the Republic, the VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT"...... ! This right is therefore for the purpose of securing, TRUE DEMOCRACY, through the first Amendment, Redress of Grievances!
ITEM #47
Date: April 29, 1994
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE
Re: Osterbur, James F. v. State of Illinois
Appeal No.: 94-1943
District Court No.: 94 C 2001
To: James F. Osterbur
2550 E
2191 County Road
St. Joseph, IL 61873
1.
Case argument to this court is presented to this court only in the formal court briefs, briefs are not due or accepted until after the fee status has been settled, see our rules on what we require in your brief.
Circuit Rule 3(b) empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen days of the docketing of the appeal. This appeal was docketed on 4/26/94. The District Court has indicated that as of 4/21/94 the docket fee has not been paid. Depending on the circumstances, you must do one of the following:
Pay the required $100.00 docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the District Court Clerk, if you have not already done so. The Court of Appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records.
2. File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the District Court. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit in the form of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the appellant(s).
If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the appeal will be dismissed.
Please do not attempt to file the appellant(s)'s brief in this appeal until either the docketing fee has been paid or leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis has been granted. The Clerk's Office is not authorized to file any party's brief until one or the other of the above requirements has been met. Briefs sent before then will be returned. The mere filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis does NOT meet this requirement; an order granting such a motion will have had to be entered.
(2071-120393) bcc: John M. Waters
The U.S. court of appeals does not issue supeonas.
For
ITEM # 48
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
May 26, 1994
By the Court:
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, ] Appeal from the United
Plaintiff-Appellant, ] States District Court for
] the Central District of
No. 94-1943 v. ] Illinois, Danville
] Division.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ]
Defendant-Appellee. ] No. 94 C 2001
]
] Harold A. Baker,
] Judge.
]
Upon consideration of the REBUTTAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF NONINVOLVEMENT, DATED MAY 17, 1994 filed 5/25/94 by the pro se appellant, which the court construes as a motion to reconsider the order of 5/20/94,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reconsider is DENIED.
Buíteb states Court of Appeal!
For the Seventh Circuit
ChicagoS Illinois 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE
ITEM #49
NO. 94-1943
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, ) On Appeal from the United
) States District Court for the
) Central District of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Illinois, Danville
) Division.
vs. ) No. 94-C-2001
STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., ) The Honorable
HAROLD A. BAKER,
Defendants . ) Judge Presiding .
MOTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ORDER OF NON-INVOLVEMENT
DUE TO LACK OF SERVICE IN THE TRIAL COURT
NOW COME the Defendants, all STATE DEFENDANTS , by and through their attorney, ROLAND W. BURRIS, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and hereby move this Court for an order of non-involvement by these defendants in this appeal. They have not been served with summons and, therefore, are not involved in this case. Since these persons, named as defendants, are not parties to this appeal, the undersigned respectfully requests that Roland W. Burris, the Attorney General of Illinois, and all Assistant Attorneys General be deleted as counsel.
ITEM #50A SEARCH FOR ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OUR COMMON security, the RIGHT OF PEACE, and RESPECT FOR LIBERTY all declare a need exists to search among the realities of this day; and call for evidence through permanent common interest: AND issue warrants to see what remains of the freedoms, the HONOR, and the JUSTICE for which men/women have died.
We are people, crowded into a world that has.become defined by the extremes of mankind. There IS an assortment of ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT, any one of which would start an avalanche of, "cause and effect relationships", that create DEATH (a loss that cannot be measured until its too late).
This application of fundamental RIGHTS, understood as, a redress of grievances, applies the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom of the entire nation, and then the world, to OUR SURVIVAL, as a planet, an environment, and a species!
The common complaint: "I don't want to be involved;" BORDERS ON TREASON, because the problems that exist, threaten every LIFE. History reveals whatever man/woman has access to, WILL eventually be used, IRREGARDLESS of the known consequences.
The common cry, "what's in it for me", would be better served by, "what will happen, IF"! Reality says the future IS determined by the past. The past is full of "it can't happen here, NOT to me, NOT to us, ETC." The past is also full of promises, "we won't let it happen, we will control, it won't cost much, ETC"!
These words, this legal description is evidence of DUTY. I, as a person, confronted directly, sufficiently trained, and capable of understanding this must be corrected, "am exactly like you" NOT interested in being a public figure. With regard to these words, the case enclosed, the record reviewed, I was drafted. It is NOT my desire to be involved, RATHER it is a duty of those who want and believe in freedom, liberty, and a peaceful society; arrogance changes to tyranny, and then to oppression! It is lack of JUSTICE which shall change the battle from words to blood; look to the past, when arrogance ruled, the nation dissolved.
YOU, as a citizen, WILL decide the importance of your own opinion (the result of the case, as a description of redress of grievances). REDRESS MEANS, YOU WILL CHOOSE, by your own actions, the rules/LAW YOU live by, and the actual threat which exists, AND the method of intervention. There is no intent to say, "the world, isn't as safe today as it was 10 years ago", RATHER these descriptions are about the future, NEAR AND WITHIN OUR LIFETIME. Does anything fix itself, or will failure occur, before repairs are made? HOW EXPENSIVE THEN!
This said, YOU SHALL also inherit or deal with the problems that exist, either with your consent OR without it! The Choice is YOURS, irregardless of any courtroom decision,
THE CONSTITUTION AND REALITY SAY: This shall be so!
Truth is NOT a relationship of "I WANT", truth is without emotion or desire or choice, in human terms, a defined reality. Truth in absolute terms, IS THE TOOL OF LIFE AND LOVE, and DOES identify CREATION as an ETERNITY, TRUTH NEVER CHANGES (ENERGY, never dies, But it can be changed).
YOU, must then consider what is true in YOU: Do you accept RESPONSIBILITY? Truth will establish the opportunity to select, search, and define through a Redress (to make right, to remove the cause). Those in power will move aside, ONLY, IF the VAST majority insist.
Democracy exists as "COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT" OR, it will fail!
The "PEOPLE PROBLEMS" of this day, CAN BE FIXED. TOMORROW, WILL be realized Either: as peace, security, and happiness, OR the problems of today will be completely forgotten, REPLACED WITH EXTREMES!
WE ARE 6 BILLION PEOPLE, and there will be order or choas, the line between shall be erased! These words are meant, NOT for fear, BUT to develop the relationship of past and present, to the future, and to discuss the RISK that this may be so, and to assess the possibilities of repair, against the question of revenge. The answer is found in, how many does it take to start a war, how hard is it to stop!
SUCH THINGS AS
Billions of guns
Population pressures beyong all hope of sustainment
Nuclear bombs, chemical bombs, biological bombs, all under the control of one person, or a soldier capable of insanity. (someone pushes the button).
Biological mutation, under the whim of man/woman.
Poverty, medical abandonment, and NO work, the inevitable result of NO RESOURCES
ETC.
These things and more are the present/future, UNLESS WE CHANGE. The decision literally IS YOURS, the answer literally is ALL OF US, the choice is TAKE CONTROL AS A DEMOCRACY: or wait for the inevitable reality of "I DON'T CARE, I GOT MINE, AND I WON'T SHARE". It won't be long!
WE ARE, ONE AT A TIME, THE FUTURE! The only question left: Will people share and care and be responsible, or not?
The words and questions presented by this material IS NOT about me, or the government, or even the court, OUR REALITY IS DETERMINED BY OURSELVES!
Respect demands, IF words are used then words must also apply proper evaluations.
Justice IS NOT a description, NOT a penalty, NOT a law: JUSTICE is a definition of LIFE AND LIVING, applied to the realities of FREEDOM and the cost of anger. Justice portrays HOPE (a belief that TRUTH, shall never change) to DUTY (a reality of existence) as the cost of HAPPINESS. Mercy believes the conception of PEACE (valued friendship) shall occur in all.
In a man's world "Justice" reveals the exchange of anger, for revenge; Idolitries form the basis of all other attempts to form social behaviors.
It is necessary to understand anger (pride without honor) as different from insanity (the acceptance of "voices" from within) and violence (belief that those "voices" have authority and must be obeyed). An example of voices is heard in the expression, "I, can't hear myself think"! The mind KNOWS everything in it, it doesn't have to listen to itself, this IS different!
Justice forms the barrier, composed of pain, suffering, WANT, and need; when Justice becomes true, Reality changes to: EQUAL SHARE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL BENEFITS, AND FREEDOM wherever the end result, sustains life and happiness.
In the past life was bought and sold. Social Justice encompasses FREEDOM for all, Reality dictates, CHOICES, that DO NOT HARM, (physically, or intentionally produce mental trauma: emotions are different) other life forms, are freedoms which MUST be allowed, (an allowance is made for the purpose of food, WHEN CARRIED OUT, AS QUICK AND PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE).
Justice encompasses the question of property, meaning "of the earth". Justice DICTATES, "what belongs to everyone, belongs to NO ONE"! Reality allows the liberty to accept the responsibility of ownership (to take NO MORE, than you need, and leave the rest). IT IS DISCIPLINE (proven responsibility) that determines ownership. The question of RIGHT, belongs to the entire NATION, as well as the WORLD!
Issues include, Justice (social harmony) distinguishes RIGHT from WRONG. The development of wrong, fundamentally REQUIRES CHANGE! Change is DIFFERENT, than punishment. Change conforms, by TEACHING, by restraint, by discipline, and by VALUE (LIFE IS GREATER THAN WANT)!
Those who FAIL by great measure, ISSUE the call, PUNISHMENT! These are ONLY, "THE VIOLENT, without cause"; those who themselves become the description of DESTRUCTION. These are entitled to the experience of "NO MERCY", but not by a mans' hand, RATHER through the natural process of nature, being cast out of society to live at the extremes of temperature and climate, FOR A SHORT TIME (food & water for a week). It is here that they (a few), will learn, and eternity shall be LESS HARSCH!
ETERNITY REMEMBERS, DO NOT take this matter, as a right. Men/women are NOT defined by other men/women, MORE IS AT RISK, than mere physical death, FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED!
HAPPINESS REQUIRES JUSTICE, JUSTICE PRODUCES EQUALITY, EQUALITY PRODUCES PEACE, WHAT DO YOU WANT?
ITEM #51
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
DATED AUGUST 12, 1994
SUBMITTED: JULY 18, 1994
BEFORE: Richard A. Posner, chief judge
John L. Coffey, circuit judge
Daniel A. Manion, circuit judge
No. 94-1943
James F. Osterbur
plaintiff/ appellant
v.
State of IL
defendant/ appellee
Appeal from the United States District court for the central district of IL, Danville division No. 94c2001, Harold A. Baker, judge
Upon consideration of the request for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal filed by the appellant on June 23, 94, the final order of the district court, and the record on appeal, this court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and the filing of briefs would not be helpful to the courts' consideration of the issues. Mather V. Village of Mundelein. 869 F. 2d 356, 357 (7th circuit. 1989) (per curiam).
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is summarily AFFIRMED.
(1119-110293)
The issues were due process and inherent right and corruption of the court/ Mather v. village of mandolin was christmas ornaments on the village property.
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
DATE SEPT 6, 1994
TO: John M. Waters
United States district court
central district of IL
Danville division
201 N. Vermillion
Danville IL 61832
FROM Thomas F. Strubbe, clerk
RE 94-1943 Osterbur, James F. V. State of IL
94-c-2001, Harold A. Baker, judge
Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the bill of costs, if any. A certified copy of the opinion/ order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to costs shall constitute the mandate
(Applied to) original record of appeal consisting of; volumes of pleadings
NOTE TO COUNSEL: if any physical and large documentary exhibits have been filed in the above-entitled cause, they are to be withdrawn ten days from the date of this notice. Exhibits not withdrawn during this period will be disposed of.
Please acknowledge receipt of these documents on the enclosed copy of this notice.
Received above mandate and record, if any from the clerk US court of appeals for the seventh circuit.
Unsigned
FROM ME: a simple, "get rid of the evidence".
ITEM #44
The Societal Journey into a legal redress of Grievances begins:
It is a FACT, that each Societal Economy is based upon only 2 factors: The first is, "I" have the RIGHT of access to such Resources as can be recognized; the second, "I" have the RIGHT of access, to the methods and processes and thoughts necessary to utilize those resources to the best of my ability.
Capitalism has proven the best , at distributing these facts to the majority; "Times however have changed. The Realities of, Resource depletion, Pollution, and over population, DO now suggest Capitalism SHOULD BE slightly altered! As a scarcity of all things, begins to become apparent; SOCIETY can no longer afford unrestrained GREED. Capitalism must therefore be RESTRICTED as to: Maximum income per year (irregardless of any other factor) of any/every individual. That amount could be, no more than the president of the United States. The result of this restriction is expected to be: MORE FOR THE REST,.............................!
Money is man kinds description of time & energy & expertise. Our time is EQUAL (person to person) for each work, IT IS OUR LIVES! Our Energy DOES NOT equal or exceed two or three other average workers! Our Expertise is largely inherited and therefore can be counted, only within the context of time and energy!
The Restriction applied to maximum income per year, per individual, to be voted upon and chosen by the majority, DOES NOT represent a Constitutional prohibition RATHER Amendment 9 says it best: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained BY THE PEOPLE: and enjoins the Constitutional Mandates: 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!
MEMORANDUM as necessary for this presentment
Humanity SEEKS FREEDOM, measuring Individual Freedom through its Societies, each looking to achieve and accumulate before other men/women, and nations. This process Redefines Freedom as Liberty for some, "Slavery" for others (the working poor).
Freedom achieved, grants every citizen a true opportunity to establish Society within their own authority (one person /.one vote). THEREFORE, when government officials create a public danger. The possibility of forcing more and more people into economic slavery, due to a wide variety of factors; for example, the national debt, improper banking policies that led to S & L bailouts, the medical monopoly, ETC.
It therefore becomes OUR RIGHT to inquire of the Constitutional Basis of this presentment, PRIOR to public evaluation.
The Legal means to obtain and enforce a, REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, "from the government", BECOMES the peoples Authority, altering or abolishing those things as NECESSARY, to substantiate and/ or delineate Freedom and Equality, within Constitutional limits, for us all!
Returning to the issue being presented: This concept of shared responsibility needs NO explanation, among the majority, (WAR, has established this).
The concept of shared Economic responsibility, through fundamental Democracy, WITHOUT altering capitalism, in any manner, Establishes people before, "truly excessive" greed.
The agreement begins, "the rich provide jobs", reality recognized is, "the rich/ powerful pay as little as possible and share virtually nothing". This agreement of jobs, WILL BE MITIGATED, through a program of, "teach and support other people in the nation/ community," and the people will allow an increase in your salary, beyond the established limit; according to the value of your work, for others and therefore the Nation.
The QUESTION TO THE COURT: for the purpose of this presentment, DOES THE DEMAND FOR EQUALITY, within Constitutional documents, and supported by the fight for Equality designated as the Civil War, (Slavery was the focal point, But Equality, described the Right, the Wrong, and the WHY) apply ? DO these , Establish the Words of the Declaration of Independence: ......."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (women) are created EQUAL; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"...........
The Spirit (the purpose chosen above selfishness, or fears, or righteousness) of these words is clearly to live as each would choose, within the boundaries of honest work equals honest pay, honorable treatment of others establishes honorable treatment for you, and WE WILL fight together, WHEN WE MUST!
Our Destiny as a Nation IS INTENDED TO BE: (Declaration of Independence).........."and of right ought to be, free and independent............and for the support of this declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, WE mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor!
Do these words then, assemble and Enable the people, as a majority, to chart their own destiny: VOTE UPON THE ISSUES (as desired) THEMSELVES; within Constitutional limits, A VETO POWER, called Democratic Authority!
The question then established is: WHO, controls the destiny of this Nation?
It is my RIGHT to inquire of the Constitutional Basis of this presentment PRIOR to public evaluation. It is in this manner that the words associated with:
DeJonge V. Oregon 299 U.S. 353, 57 S. CT. 255, 81 L. ED. 278 (1937) ........"to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the SECURITY of the Republic, the VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT"...... ! This right is therefore for the purpose of securing, TRUE DEMOCRACY, through the first Amendment, Redress of Grievances!
RE: 94-2001
This case begins in the lower courts strictly in the language of the common citizen, A SIMPLE CASE. As requested by the Court it was "redressed" in a legal format, BASED UPON: A civil Rights action!
Evidence and personal testimony was given, and established through the Record, which was filed with the pleadings, and the memorandum in support. (cause of grievance), and further identified by (the common citizens outcry for Justice), a simple explanation included in the writ of right, Jan 28,1994.
The evidence was submitted within a CLEAR and CONCISE investigative procedure, whereupon the extent of abuse, and thereby damage could be easily ascertained; again as implied and supported by the record, received jan 6,1994 (applied to the test)!
The plaintiff illustrates his Right through Constitutional doctrine (authority)
YET THE COURT SAYS; "the plaintiffs response does not satisfy the courts requirements, specifically Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a). Rule 8 (a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgement for the relief the pleader seeks. Feb 08,1994.
The plaintiff replies Feb 18,1994, with a Constitutional Basis, per pleading, Being SHORT, and PLAIN, and SPECIFIC.
The Court replies: "Frivolous"
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604
May 26, 1994
By the Court:
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, ] Appeal from the United
Plaintiff-Appellant, ] States District Court for
] the Central District of
No. 94-1943 v. ] Illinois, Danville
] Division.
STATE OF ILLINOIS, ]
Defendant-Appellee. ] No. 94 C 2001
]
] Harold A. Baker,
] Judge.
]
Upon consideration of the REBUTTAL OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF NONINVOLVEMENT, DATED MAY 17, 1994 filed 5/25/94 by the pro se appellant, which the court construes as a motion to reconsider the order of 5/20/94,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reconsider is DENIED.
Buíteb states Court of Appeal!
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago Illinois 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE
ITEM #52
Re-typed for electronic transfer space
Re: 94-1943
MOTION
For court appointed counsel
I, James F. Osterbur do hereby declare I have NO formal legal training therefore: counsel is requested from the US attorneys office, that an adequate interpretation and legal defense may be made for the people. I Do NOT seek personal counsel, RATHER the surety that an honest and Fair presentation of constitutional authority and law for the benefit of all the people shall be the outcome. The court is reminded of critical issues, as are apparent within case 94-1943 and their subsequent importance to the nation at large. It would be unfortunate if the media or others ridicule the procedure or the outcome!
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
DATE: June 23, 1994
by the court
no: 94-1943
James F. Osterbur
plaintiff/ appellant
v.
State of Illinois
defendant/ appellee
appeal from the United States district court for the central district of Ill, Danville division no.94 C 2001, Harold A. Baker, Judge
The court, on its own motion orders that briefing is suspended pending a ruling on appellant's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
(1099-1025931)
RE-TYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO IL 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B) NOTICE
DATE MAY 31, 1994
NO. 94-1943
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF IL
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
TO: James F. Osterbur 2550 E 2191 cr St. Joseph IL 61873
appeal from the united states district court for the central district of Il Danville division no 94-c-2001, Harold A. Baker, Judge
This court's records indicate that on 5/24/94 the district court denied your motion to proceed in forma pauperis
WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS YOU MUST EITHER:
1. Pay the required $100.00 docketing fee plus the $5.00 filing fee ($105.00 total) to the district court clerk. The court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for you records.
2. File a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the court of appeals. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit in the form of a sworn statement. Listing you assets and income.
IF ONE OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE LISTED ABOVE, YOUR CASE WILL BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B).
(1085-110393)
RETYPED for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B) NOTICE
DATED APRIL 29, 1994
RE: OSTERBUR, JAMES F. V. STATE OF IL
APPEAL NO. 94-1943
DISTRICT COURT NO. 94-C-2001
Case argument to this court is presented to this court only in the formal court briefs, briefs are not due or accepted until after the fee status has been settled, see our rules on what we require in your brief.
TO; James F. Osterbur
2550 e 2191 cr St. Joseph Il 61873
Circuit rule 3 (b) empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen days of the docketing of the appeal. This appeal was docketed on 4/26/94. The district court has indicated that as of 4/21/94 the docket fee has not been paid. Depending on the circumstances, you must do one of the following:
1. pay the required $100.00 docketing fee plus the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the district court clerk. If you have not already done so. The court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records.
2. file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the district court. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit in the form of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the appellant.
If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the appeal will be dismissed.
PLEASE DO NOT attempt to file the appellants brief in this appeal until either the docketing fee has been paid or leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis has been granted. The clerk's office is not authorized to file any party's brief until one or the other of the above requirements has been met. Briefs sent before then will be returned. The mere filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis does not meet this requirement; AN ORDER granting such a motion will have had to be entered.
(2071-120393)
bcc: John M. waters.
Retyped for electronic transfer
JAMES F. OSTERBUR 255O E. 2191 CR ST. JOSEPH, IL 61873
94-1944 & 94-1943
your letter dated April 29, 1994 circuit rule 3 (b)
Notice says, "DO NOT attempt to file the appellants brief until fee is paid or forma pauperis is granted". Forma pauperis is STILL in limbo!
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
NO APPELLEE BRIEF TO BE FILED
DATED MAY 20, 1994
BY THE COURT
NO. 94-1943
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ILL
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
Appeal from the United States District court for the central district of IL, Danville division No. 94-c-2001 Harold A. Baker, judge
The attorney general has advised this court on 5/17/94 that the appellee was not served with process in the district court and will not be proceeding in this appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this appeal will be submitted for decision without the filing of a brief by the appellee.
(1150-013194)
RETYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
213 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO , IL 60604
THOMAS F. STRUBBE, CLERK Date 10/13/94
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191 CR ST. JOSEPH, IL 61873
RE: 94-1943 OSTERBUR V. IL
Dear Mr. Osterbur
I am returning these documents that were sent to our judges. They appear to concern the filing of a direct appeal to the US supreme court.
The US supreme court in 1990 revised its rules and no longer takes direct appeals from courts of appeals.
In order to have this courts decision reviewed by the supreme court you need to file a writ of certiorari directly with their court.
Sincerely pro se clerk
US supreme court
office of the clerk
washington DC 20343
The US supreme court phone number is 202-479-3000 I would strongly suggest you call them for instructions on how to file the proper case.
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RE; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
OSTERBUR
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT, Thomas F. Strubbe
The documents returned RE: 94-1943 ARE indeed a DIRECT APPEAL to the US supreme court, NOT a writ of certiorari
The judges whose names appear upon each packet ARE DEFENDANT, within that legal action, and these returned packets are their notice (look at the list on the appeal).
Their names appear because they are the final defense within a legitimate and REASONABLE appeal and they DID FAIL completely, to do their job.
This direct appeal then directs the US government to examine the practices and policies and adhere to the third article of the US constitution, section 1 "the judges of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their office during GOOD BEHAVIOR...."
Disciplinary action or dismissal is therefore the call page 7, "show me, the frivolous nature of these appeals and identify, the courts discretion, as LEGAL procedure, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION".
I, will again issue the statement: "Fraud is a criminal term, without notice or opportunity to defend, I was forced to turn over private property." Medical extortion, exists when a trauma patient IS NOT EQUAL, to a corporate entity, within the judicial system.
James F. Osterbur
DISMISSED FOR MATHER V. VILLAGE OF MUNDELEIN NO. 99-3226
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 21, 1989
REVIEW FOR YOURSELVES, if this is not simple treason
the case
Village resident challenged constitutionality of creche in holiday display on lawn in front of village hall. The United states district court for the northern district of Il James B Zagel J. 699 F. supp 1300, found violation of establishment clause. village appealed. The court of appeals 864 F. 2d 1291 reversed. On petition for rehearing, the court of appeals held that it did not violate rules of appellate procedure by deciding case on basis of record, district court's opinion, motions paper, and oral argument without setting case for full briefing. Rehearing denied.
ITEM #53
Re-typed for electronic transfer space
Re: 94-1943
MOTION
For court appointed counsel
I, James F. Osterbur do hereby declare I have NO formal legal training therefore: counsel is requested from the US attorneys office, that an adequate interpretation and legal defense may be made for the people. I Do NOT seek personal counsel, RATHER the surety that an honest and Fair presentation of constitutional authority and law for the benefit of all the people shall be the outcome. The court is reminded of critical issues, as are apparent within case 94-1943 and their subsequent importance to the nation at large. It would be unfortunate if the media or others ridicule the procedure or the outcome!
Retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
DATE: June 23, 1994
by the court
no: 94-1943
James F. Osterbur
plaintiff/ appellant
v.
State of Illinois
defendant/ appellee
appeal from the United States district court for the central district of Ill, Danville division no.94 C 2001, Harold A. Baker, Judge
The court, on its own motion orders that briefing is suspended pending a ruling on appellant's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
(1099-1025931)
RE-TYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO IL 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B) NOTICE
DATE MAY 31, 1994
NO. 94-1943
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF IL
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
TO: James F. Osterbur 2550 E 2191 cr St. Joseph IL 61873
appeal from the united states district court for the central district of Il Danville division no 94-c-2001, Harold A. Baker, Judge
This court's records indicate that on 5/24/94 the district court denied your motion to proceed in forma pauperis
WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS YOU MUST EITHER:
1. Pay the required $100.00 docketing fee plus the $5.00 filing fee ($105.00 total) to the district court clerk. The court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for you records.
2. File a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with the court of appeals. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit in the form of a sworn statement. Listing you assets and income.
IF ONE OF THE ABOVE ACTIONS IS NOT TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE LISTED ABOVE, YOUR CASE WILL BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B).
(1085-110393)
RETYPED for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
CIRCUIT RULE 3 (B) NOTICE
DATED APRIL 29, 1994
RE: OSTERBUR, JAMES F. V. STATE OF IL
APPEAL NO. 94-1943
DISTRICT COURT NO. 94-C-2001
Case argument to this court is presented to this court only in the formal court briefs, briefs are not due or accepted until after the fee status has been settled, see our rules on what we require in your brief.
TO; James F. Osterbur
2550 e 2191 cr St. Joseph Il 61873
Circuit rule 3 (b) empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen days of the docketing of the appeal. This appeal was docketed on 4/26/94. The district court has indicated that as of 4/21/94 the docket fee has not been paid. Depending on the circumstances, you must do one of the following:
1. pay the required $100.00 docketing fee plus the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the district court clerk. If you have not already done so. The court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records.
2. file a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the district court. An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by an affidavit in the form of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the appellant.
If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the appeal will be dismissed.
PLEASE DO NOT attempt to file the appellants brief in this appeal until either the docketing fee has been paid or leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis has been granted. The clerk's office is not authorized to file any party's brief until one or the other of the above requirements has been met. Briefs sent before then will be returned. The mere filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis does not meet this requirement; AN ORDER granting such a motion will have had to be entered.
(2071-120393)
bcc: John M. waters.
Retyped for electronic transfer
JAMES F. OSTERBUR 255O E. 2191 CR ST. JOSEPH, IL 61873
94-1944 & 94-1943
your letter dated April 29, 1994 circuit rule 3 (b)
Notice says, "DO NOT attempt to file the appellants brief until fee is paid or forma pauperis is granted". Forma pauperis is STILL in limbo!
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
CHICAGO, IL 60604
NO APPELLEE BRIEF TO BE FILED
DATED MAY 20, 1994
BY THE COURT
NO. 94-1943
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ILL
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
Appeal from the United States District court for the central district of IL, Danville division No. 94-c-2001 Harold A. Baker, judge
The attorney general has advised this court on 5/17/94 that the appellee was not served with process in the district court and will not be proceeding in this appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that this appeal will be submitted for decision without the filing of a brief by the appellee.
(1150-013194)
RETYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
213 SOUTH DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO , IL 60604
THOMAS F. STRUBBE, CLERK Date 10/13/94
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
2191 CR ST. JOSEPH, IL 61873
RE: 94-1943 OSTERBUR V. IL
Dear Mr. Osterbur
I am returning these documents that were sent to our judges. They appear to concern the filing of a direct appeal to the US supreme court.
The US supreme court in 1990 revised its rules and no longer takes direct appeals from courts of appeals.
In order to have this courts decision reviewed by the supreme court you need to file a writ of certiorari directly with their court.
Sincerely pro se clerk
US supreme court
office of the clerk
washington DC 20343
The US supreme court phone number is 202-479-3000 I would strongly suggest you call them for instructions on how to file the proper case.
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RE; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
OSTERBUR
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT, Thomas F. Strubbe
The documents returned RE: 94-1943 ARE indeed a DIRECT APPEAL to the US supreme court, NOT a writ of certiorari
The judges whose names appear upon each packet ARE DEFENDANT, within that legal action, and these returned packets are their notice (look at the list on the appeal).
Their names appear because they are the final defense within a legitimate and REASONABLE appeal and they DID FAIL completely, to do their job.
This direct appeal then directs the US government to examine the practices and policies and adhere to the third article of the US constitution, section 1 "the judges of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their office during GOOD BEHAVIOR...."
Disciplinary action or dismissal is therefore the call page 7, "show me, the frivolous nature of these appeals and identify, the courts discretion, as LEGAL procedure, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION".
I, will again issue the statement: "Fraud is a criminal term, without notice or opportunity to defend, I was forced to turn over private property." Medical extortion, exists when a trauma patient IS NOT EQUAL, to a corporate entity, within the judicial system.
James F. Osterbur
DISMISSED FOR MATHER V. VILLAGE OF MUNDELEIN NO. 99-3226
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 21, 1989
REVIEW FOR YOURSELVES, if this is not simple treason
the case
Village resident challenged constitutionality of creche in holiday display on lawn in front of village hall. The United states district court for the northern district of Il James B Zagel J. 699 F. supp 1300, found violation of establishment clause. village appealed. The court of appeals 864 F. 2d 1291 reversed. On petition for rehearing, the court of appeals held that it did not violate rules of appellate procedure by deciding case on basis of record, district court's opinion, motions paper, and oral argument without setting case for full briefing. Rehearing denied.
ITEM #54
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Date: August 12, 1994
Submitted: July 18, 1994
No. 94-1943
BEFORE:
Honorable RICHARD A. POSNER, Chief Judge
Honorable JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
Honorable DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
Plaintiff - Appellant
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Danville Division No. 94 C 2001, Harold A. Baker, Judge
Upon consideration of the request for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal filed by the appellant on June 23, 1994, the final order of the District Court, and the record on appeal, this court has determined that any issues which could be raised are insubstantial and the filing of briefs would not be helpful to the court's consideration of the issues. Mather v. Village of Mundelein, 869 F.2d 356, 357 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED and the judgment of the District Court is summarily AFFIRMED.
(1119-110293)
Entteb
ITEM #55
FEDERAL CASE 94-2060
FILED 4 21, 1994
RE;94-2060
1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT
FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
The argument arises: WHO, HAS THE RIGHT to ask/why and where?
The first Amendment is quite clear: Congress shall make NO LAW.......prohibiting....or abridging the freedom of ......or the Right of......a redress of grievances.
The first Amendment is again quite clear: In whose freedom....."the people".....and who/what is restricted/required....."the government".
The third Article of the Constitution, is quite clear about legal issues/responsibilities: "section 1, The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts....established". and section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and the laws of the United States..."
This petition draws from the initiating cases 94-2001 & 94-2060 to establish: THESE LEGAL GRIEVANCES!
let the facts be submitted:
The court IS NOT IMMUNE, it is established to PRODUCE, adequate or better behavior within Society, it is NOT separate, or entitled to exclusive privileges, BUT an example of a higher ideal! The court fails in these cases.
The court IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, IF it cannot understand, complaints as arise from, "the common public citizen", in simple language! The court fails in these cases.
The court IS NOT in compliance with Constitutional doctrine as defined by: WE THE PEOPLE......"IF the people cannot establish their authority by a legal redress of grievances"........IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION....."IF the fundamental values supplied by the Bill of Rights, FAIL to instruct"........ESTABLISH JUSTICE......."IF the formality of court proceedings demonstrates, a complete disregard for the outcome or allows EASY ABUSE of the citizenry"....INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY........"IF the court fails to uphold JUSTICE (the intent of the Law, as directed through the Bill of Rights)..........PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE........"IF the people are forced to PURCHASE justice"...........PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.........."IF the Law can become entangled (millions of words are TOO MANY)......AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY,........."IF liberty FAILS the people, allowing one group supremacy over the majority, allows pillaging of resources, allows the betrayal of the public trust in its most basic social foundation, allows inherent and inalienable rights to be possessions stolen."
Are these the things ordained and established by the American Constitution? WHOSE COUNTRY IS THIS?
The civil Authority CANNOT be demonstrated upon a single complaint. The public issues arise in connection with VALID, REASONABLE, social disputes. The authority called civil power BEGINS:
When the people join.
when the people discuss relevant expectations.
when the people Watch/Listen and react.
when the people define their decision.
when the people explain how far the boundary extends.
when the people specify, the penalty.
AND IS COMPLETE
when the people enforce their decision through law; CLEARLY visible and understandable to the majority.
Throughout the legal cases represented by Federal case 94-2001 & 94-2060 EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT, to communicate the Realities involved, has been made; yet the Court says, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND"!
ITEM #56
. 94-2060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,)
Defendants )
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has submitted a complaint purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The proposed class action seeks vindication of the constitutional rights of "the common public citizen." The plaintiff sues the United States governmerst, the State of Illinois, and the Medical Industry ("as represented by Covenant Medical Center"). The plaintiff has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the pleadings on file are unacceptable.
The complaint does not conform to the filing requirements se! forth in-the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Having read the plaintiff's entire 31-page complaint, the court remains completely ignorant as to the basis for the lawsuit.
r The complaint contains rambling paragraphs that mention regulation of the medical industry, freedom of the press, due process, equal protection of the laws, and involuntary servitude, among other legal issues. At its conclusion, the complaint demands five hundred million dollars to be used by the states for pre-natal and infant medical care. However, the complaint is devoid of any facts to support the plaintiff's claim for relief. It is completely unclear why the plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit, or what standing he has to sue.
The Clerk shall provide the plaintiff with civil rights complaint forms. Although the plaintiff is not required to use the court's pre-printed forms, he may find them useful in drafting his complaint. The plaintiff must submit an original complains setting forth his allegations against each defendant, along with a carbon copy or photocopy of the complaint for service upon each defendant.
In addition, the plaintiff must submit a separate memorandum of law in support of his claims, as he appears to have filed this action before conducting any legal research. The memorandum should address the plaintiff's standing to sue, the requirements for class certification, the prerequisites to suits against the United States, and the permissibility of actions for damages against the State of Illinois. The complaint should state the basic facts of the case (no legal arguments); the memorandum should apply the facts to the law.
B"íteb states QCourt of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
NO APPELLEE (S) BRIEF TO BE
ITEM #57
RE: 94-2060
This Case comes to court by reason of the MONOPOLY that clearly exists in medicine, and the reality that government enforces and allows this monopoly to stand.
THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
Further laws which might produce a Fair or Equal footing, between the public and the medical profession, DO NOT EXIST!
Evidence exists that the "Business of Medicine" can control Basic Liberties, forcing compliance without reasonable legal contest over cost.
The public is openly VULNERABLE, yet the medical establishment is CLOSED, access denied!
The individual is open to evaluation and therefrom terminology which cannot adequately describe ANY PERSON. Medicine dictates and allows NO retaliation.
The Realities involved in medical trauma transcend and eliminate ALL possibilities of free enterprise.
The taxpayer provides ANYTHING medicine asks, while medicine controls ALL aspects of patient care.
The TAXPAYER HAS LONG BEEN ABUSED!
The taxpayer/patient must fight alone against unfair pricing policies.
ALL these things the court finds, "INCOMPREHENSIBLE", even as seen within the plain and simple words pg 4, reply to order mar 18,1994. "each of which align specifically with the public right to a legal redress of grievances, as the purpose of this lawsuit".
The court represented by Judge Harold A. Baker. finds the constitutional framework of a legal redress of grievances, as defined by the first amendment to be, "frivolous".
The court also rejects known "medical business", realities of trauma, billing, etc, as irrational OR unsupported: Directly in violation of my right to DUE PROCESS. Judgement IS illegal outside of the courtroom. This supposition is supported from court documents, this case and case 94-2001.
Let it be known JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY, through and HONEST evaluation of fundamental realities is the purpose and the demand. Constitutional Authority DOES belong to the people.
ITEM #58
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RE: 94-2060
Reply to order filed march 18,1994
The constitution (state and National), as seen through the precedents already received by the court (pgs 10-31) DICTATE AND DECREE: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law, belongs specifically to the people, WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE!
The Authority undertaken IS NOT CONTRARY, to the Constitution (state or national) and thereby according to the precedents given, BELONGS to the people; McCulloch V. Maryland, pg 31. The court, whose authority is granted through the people, by this constitution is CONSTRAINED, to uphold: WE THE PEOPLE.........! Martin V. Hunter's lessee pg 29.
The claims arise,
I/WE, DEMAND TO BE EQUAL. (BILL OF RIGHTS)
I/WE DEMAND SOVEREIGNTY, over our lives (apart from criminal). (THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES)
I/WE DEMAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM THOSE ENTITIES WHICH HAVE SEIZED OUR FUTURE, ESTABLISHING personal DEBTS, medical or other, BEYOND OUR CONTROL OR DESIRE. The protection of personal property (debt control) is within the fifth amendment (U. S. Constitution), AS APPLIED TO: OUR POSTERITY, the children have a right to JUST COMPENSATION! (THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE)
I/WE DEMAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, to medical information, New York Times V. Sullivan pg 29, as NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL, and is held within the fourth amendment (U.S. Constitution) : The RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS.....!
I/WE DO CLAIM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and those listed previously, HAVE BEEN TAKEN, from us by the medical establishment. Standard Oil V. United States pg 28.
I/WE DO CLAIM these Constitutional rights were dismissed by the state of Illinois, particularly in view of Illinois code of civil procedure, section 2-622. United States V. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, Singleton and Memphis and Charleston R. Co. pg 16.
I/WE DO CLAIM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE/ARE UNPROTECTED, by the United States Government. Whitney V. California pg 17.
Evidence will show, "LACK OF LAW", LACK OF MITIGATION/ARBITRATION RIGHTS, LACK OF PERSONAL DEBT CONTROL (A TAKING, by others), and lack of personal INHERENT RIGHTS! De Jonge V. Oregon pg19.
The Constitution will show: It is a DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP, to correct these problems; the legal nature of these problems, brings them to OUR COURT, AND TO OUR PEOPLE! Meyer V. Nebraska pg 22.
WE DESERVE, to live within the Values and Rights, as the Constitution (the people of the U. S.) provides; OR WE LIVE IN ANARCHY. Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co. pg 16.
The primary Amendments to the United States Constitution wherein the people rest IS: ARTICLES 1,4,5,7,9,10,13,&14
The Right of the people, to a LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Crandell V. Nevada pg 30, RATHER THAN, a political discussion, is covered and allowed by Amendment 9 of the constitution, and section 2 of the Bill of Rights, AND IS COMPULSORY, DUE TO: Distinctly personal/public issues of property, Justice, and commerce. West Coast Hotel V. Parrish pg 13.
Let it be reiterated: The FIRST DUTY assumed by each Judge under his/her oath of office, IS to support the federal and state constitutions (the constitution alone, AS IT IS WRITTEN, IS the sole test). The court MUST of necessity, enforce the constitution. WUEBKER V. JAMES, Co Ct 1944, 58 NYS 2d 671. and STATE V. JUD FIRST NAT BANK, 1925, 202 N. W. 391 , 52 N.D. 231, OATH OF OFFICE, art 6, CL 3
The order march 18,1994 suggests the basis or foundation is lacking; YET the court plainly acknowledges the relationship and validity of 42 USC 1983 ( the public health and welfare). The Court reasoned, read, and UNDERSTOOD, making the charge, "ignorant as to the basis" of questionable integrity.
The foundation of the complaint is further identified and acknowledged by the Court in: "seeks vindication of the Constitutional Rights of the common public citizen". The words are TOO PLAIN, to produce doubt as to their meaning! From Noble State Bank V. Haskel pg 11. Canfield V. United States pg 11. Driscoll V. Edison Light and Power Co pg 11
The court having acknowledged a case involving constitutional rights, as well as, public health and welfare, German Alliance Insurance Co. V. Lewis pg 11; DISTINCTLY AND DELIBERATELY IGNORES, the plaintiffs request for legal counsel in its order, stating instead , "as he appears to have filed this action before conducting any legal research". Johnson V. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, Yet, the Court DOES UNDERSTAND, the plaintiff cannot afford to PURCHASE JUSTICE. Nor does the court make any case whatsoever against providing adequate counsel. Examination indicates the protection of constitutional rights to be PARAMOUNT to the courts RESPONSIBILITY, yet the court makes no mention within this order acknowledging its DUTY and its obligation. Rather the judge initiates the description of, " Court Jester", with his words, "must submit a separate memorandum of law, in support of his claims". This attempt is in poor taste, and IS NOT appreciated.
The memorandum of law IS acknowledged by the judge: "at its conclusion, the complaint demands....", which falls upon the ninth page, and the judges' own words, "having read the plaintiffs entire 31 page complaint". The tenth page being entitled "memorandum of law, RE 94-2060, DEMANDS a situation akin to PERJURY exists.
This memorandum pages 10-31, exists primarily of precedents taken from the Supreme Court of the United States, and is plainly so described; each of which align specifically with the public right to a LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, as the purpose of this lawsuit, American Federation of Labor V. Swing pg 20. AND IS IDENTIFIED, as such, by the words, "that a citizen/citizens, have a duty and a right, to present to the court significant breeches of these fundamental principles is, A MOST BASIC CIVIL POWER, page 31, and on page 1 "establish through definition, FAIR PRINCIPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAW," (an adaption from the Bill of Rights, section 3.) Thornhill V. Alabama pg 21.
The court purports to make an issue of : "the complaint is devoid of any facts", yet dismisses without cause, page 2 original pleading 2 A, An obvious usurpation of amendment 7, clearly stated. 2 B (1) the cases and the words ........NO LEGAL RECOURSE.(clearly supported through court transcript)....dismissed by lack of law, (the trial Judges words)..... or minor procedural infraction,(the appellate judges determination),..... and NOT for any other reason. Initiating the question; ARE THESE NOT SUFFICIENT, CLEARLY SUPPORTED, FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Pleading 2C DOES support the issue raised is COMMERCE. Pleading 2D DOES infer "LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST", because "public" information is Denied. It is the job of the court to determine, WHO has the controlling interest. Pleading 2E Establishes itself within the cases listed 2B. Pleading 2F Shall be established at trial and begins its associations with the case, Chambers V. Florida pg 30. Pleading 3 IS established, throughout the cases 92S1561 and 92C1222 AS, this much GREED, CANNOT justify tax-exempt status. Pleading 3A ESTABLISHES MONOPOLY in the making. Pleading 3B IS obvious and CONTRARY TO, "WE THE PEOPLE". PLEADING 3C ESTABLISHES government Failure to protect the citizen, even when the problem is recognized. DID this judge FAIL, making the statement; "the complaint contains [rambling paragraphs]." The issues HE RECOGNIZED; Regulation of the medical industry, freedom of the press, due process, equal protection of the laws, and involuntary servitude, among other legal issues. Consequent to this DID HE call for, or provide a writ of certiorari, that the facts might be investigated which PLAINLY DISTINGUISH........this plaintiffs standing to sue and bring suit, SUBSTANTIATING, "my/our Constitutional rights have been violated"; through the court, by the medical industry, and by the government whose authority to protect, and to provide legal recourse, for each citizen, has been held in BAD FAITH!
DOES THE JUDGE ALLEGE, these are frivolous pleadings, OR does he endeavor to sit upon, "a throne", asserting the common citizen CANNOT come here, a literal form of tyranny, DEVOID of Constitutional authority! DOES, the charge of DISCRIMINATION, stand? Against those too poor or without a legal education; IS their lives or needs, for PROPER Judicial intervention, "Frivolous"? Does the DEMAND (pleading) page 5, FAIL to CONVEY, "THE PUBLIC CITIZEN NEEDS THE COURT". The court states; "the memorandum should apply the facts to the law", BUT the court provides NO precedent or LAW! Jurisdiction is again re-instated, that the citizen/citizens DO OWN UNDENIABLE RIGHTS, TO THIS FORM, OF DUE PROCESS!
It is IMPOSSIBLE, to believe the public (common citizen), has been treated differently than I, (these things occur) producing the response "CLASS ACTION SUIT".
The plaintiff (WE), DEMAND the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, AS CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED; having paid the price for it, WE DEMAND IT! Twining V. New Jersey pg 23 (LAW OF THE LAND).
These are LEGAL questions; giving, requiring, Jurisdiction to be within the court. As the constitution declares Article 3, section 1: The judicial power of the U.S. shall be vested in the court........ Section 2. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this constitution..... Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. V. Grosjean pg 24
These are questions, SECURED, to the American system of government, BY THE RIGHT TO VOTE. These complaints submit, National security is described as: 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, ...........(FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN). And hereby re-submits, these complaints are supported by court documents, commonly known FACTS, and by the preparation of evidence, to be undertaken. Wilson V. New pg 24.
The court may select REASONABLE boundaries determining: IF NO MORE THAN_______________ citizens JOIN, in this case, once sufficient time and advertizement has occurred, the case shall be dismissed. TO JOIN SHALL BE TO VOTE! Block V. Hirsh pg 27.
The court suggests and demonstrates this case has already been decided by its "rejection of the facts and memorandum" and initiates the prejudicial response, "Frivolous pleadings".
This Plaintiff instructs the Court, DECLARE, the "frivolous" nature of the words: "These matters are literally about life, death, and property, and cannot be brushed aside, page 9, and the "Frivolous" nature suggested, within the constitutional rights herein, AS STATED! Mugler V. Kansas pg 28.
This plaintiff, EXPECTS FULL LEGAL RECOURSE, Adkins V. Childrens Hospital pg 28, or will be forced to initiate the words and actions necessary to establish, the Court MOCKS the first Amendment of the constitution: "the right of the people peacefully to petition the government, for a redress of grievances"! As well as, an absolute avoidance, of amendments 14,15,19, and 26, by this court.
It is sufficient to say: The amount of money represented, is LESS than 1 %, of the "medical business". The CALL, within this case, IS FOR JUSTICE! It is REPREHENSIBLE, BUT TRUE; The failure to include a monetary penalty, UNDIGNIFIED or NOT, precludes the Right to trial. The court says NO damages, NO case!
Wolff Packing Co. V. Court of Industrial Relations pg 27.
ITEM #59
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAR 18 1994
JAMES F. OSTERBUR,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 94-2060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has submitted a complaint purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The proposed class action seeks vindication of the constitutional rights of "the common public citizen." The plaintiff sues the United States government, the State of Illinois, and the Medical Industry ("as represented by Covenant Medical Center"). The plaintiff has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the pleadings on file are unacceptable.
The complaint does not conform to the filing requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Having read the plaintiff's entire 31-page complaint, the court remains completely ignorant as to the basis for the lawsuit.
The complaint contains rambling paragraphs that mention regulation of the medical industry, freedom of the press, due process, equal protection of the laws, and involuntary servitude, among other legal issues. At its conclusion, the complaint demands five hundred million dollars to be used by the states for pre-natal and infant medical care. However, the complaint is devoid of any facts to support the plaintiff's claim for relief. It is completely unclear why the plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit, or what standing he has to sue.
The Clerk shall provide the plaintiff with civil rights complaint forms. Although the plaintiff is not required to use the court's pre-printed forms, he may find them useful in drafting his complaint. The plaintiff must submit an original complaint setting forth his allegations against each defendant, along with a carbon copy or photocopy of the complaint for service upon each defendant.
In addition, the plaintiff must submit a separate memorandum of law in support of his claims, as he appears to have filed this action before conducting any legal research. The memorandum should address the plaintiff's standing to sue, the requirements for class certification, the prerequisites to suits against the United States, and the permissibility of actions for damages against the State of Illinois. The complaint should state the basic facts of the case (no legal arguments); the memorandum should apply the facts to the law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, submit a proper complaint (plus copies for the defendants), and a separate memorandum of law in support of his claims, all subject to Rule 11's provisions for sanctions for frivolous pleadings. The Clerk is directed to mail the plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with the court's directives will result in denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis and summary dismissal of this action, with prejudice.
Enter this 18th day of march, 1994.
Harold A. Baker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ITEM #60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FILED
APR 11 1994
JAMES F . OSTERBUR,
Plaintiff
vs. No. 94-2060
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,)
Defendãnts .
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has brought this federal action purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The proposed class action seeks vindication of the constitutional rights of "the common public citizen." The plaintiff sues the United States government, the State of Illinois, and the Medical Industry ("as represented by Covenant Medical Center").
By Order of March 18, 1994, the court rejected the complaint, finding the document to be devoid of facts and incomprehensible. Nevertheless, the court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of his claims.
The plaintiff's response, which consists of a series of legal citations and invectives, is unacceptable and not in compliance with the court's order. The plaintiff has failed to submit a complaint setting forth the basic facts upon which he is suing, and a separate memorandum of law. After reading the plaintiff's rambling reply, the court still is unable to determine either the legal or factual basis for this lawsuit.
It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), reh'g denied, 405 U.S. 945 (1972). "[A] district court judge should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if an action is frivolous or malicious." Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Division, County Court, Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin, 510 F.2d 130, 134 (7th Cir. l975), principle reaffirmed in Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 1987).
A frivolous complaint is one in which 'the petitioner can make no rational argument in law or facts to support his or her claim for relief." Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F.2d 304, 306 (7th Cir. 1988), aff'd sub nom Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Although the plaintiff has submitted two ostensible statements of his claims, the court remains completely at a loss as to what the factual basis for this lawsuit is, or what federal cause of action the plaintiff might have. Because the plaintiff is unable to articulate a colorable claim for relief in federal court, the complaint will be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiffs petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case is dismissed, without prejudice.
Enter this 11th day of april 1994
HAROLD A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
'~//>v&Xt
HAROLD A. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ITEM #61
11
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
Central district of Illinois
A CLASS ACTION SUIT.
RE: 94-2060
PLAINTIFF: the common public citizen
represented by: James F. Osterbur
V.
DEFENDANT: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Represented by: the ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
for the government; Janet Reno, or as appointed.
DEFENDANT: STATE OF ILLINOIS
Represented by: the ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
for the government: Roland Burris, or as appointed.
DEFENDANT: THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
Represented by: Covenant Medical Center.
1400 west Park
Urbana, Ill 60801
When a situation exists, of national interest, which can be seen as the basis and foundation of Society at peace, that is contrary to the common benefit, protection and security of the people, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter or require regulation in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public good, and thereby establish, through definition, FAIR PRINCIPLES AND LAW, for future and immediate, legislative action.
1. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: Predilection of the legislature through action or inaction AS: Regulation toward (in favor of) the medical industry and against the citizenry as a whole. BILL OF RIGHTS; section 4. That NO man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community.......
2. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: Usage by the medical industry of " illegal constitutional limitations on the rights of citizenship."
(A). Section 2-622 illinois code of civil procedure, REQUIRING, acknowledgement/allowance, by the medical profession BEFORE court controversies can exist, and thereby prejudge, PRIOR TO: Trial by Jury, OR in place of; A MONOPOLY.
(B). Denial of Amendment 7; which allows, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversey shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved....."
(1) Evidence shall be presented in the form of, State of Illinois: 92s1561 Champaign County, 6th district, 92c1222 Champaign County, 6th district, Gen 4-93-0847 Appellate Court, 4th district, and 76450 Supreme Court, AS A BEGINNING. These trials were initiated in relation to; James F. Osterbur, appearing at Covenant Medical Center EMERGENCY DOOR, complaining of a heart problem (thought to be preliminary heart attack) and (his own words) being used, abused, rejected, OVERBILLED with NO LEGAL RECOURSE, and suffering serious consequences from that incident. Trials held in 92s1561, and 92c1222, were by Judge, BUT were dismissed through the LACK OF LAW, or minor procedural infraction, and NOT for any other reason.
(C). Amendment 13 precludes, "neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE........"
(1) Evidence shall be submitted indicating medical trauma, PRECLUDES free enterprise situations, which can thereby induce a "MONETARY IMPRISONMENT", without the patients' being at liberty to dissent or choose. NOT FREE ENTERPRISE, SUBJECTS, the patient to restricted markets beyond their control; i.e. Opportunity to select the drug supplier of choice, etc, does NOT exist!
(2) Evidence shall further be submitted, the medical trauma patient is held "IMPRISONED", to the discretion of "COST PLUS ANYTHING THEY WANT", in relation to supplies, drugs, etc.
The test; Does the Restriction of free market forces constitute pricefixing? Does the patient, finding him/herself attacked by medical trauma, deserve the minimal protection of free market forces? Neither the hospital Nor the doctor, produce drugs, they merely represent a common business "middleman", capable of extracting more than deserved, due to patient vulnurability.
(D). Denial of Amendment 1: Restricted FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, limiting the freedom of choice, freedom of speech.
(1) Evidence shall be submitted examining the Right of the public to be informed, REGARDING such matters as doctor and hospital performance, and medical reliability (the reward of the procedure/its possible costs). Medicine, IS a business affected with the public interest, and NO LESS CRITICAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL, than freedom of the press is to other democratic (freedom./liberty) issues.
(E) Usurption of Amendment 9: The right of the people to be free from terminology which denies or disparages their Right of Privacy, and consequent freedom. Those which are NOT subject to criminal punishments.
(1). Evidence shall be presented that defines; terminology is used without consent or opportunity for trial, a TRUE invasion of privacy, and fundamental control by others, WITHOUT sufficient cause, authority, or accuracy.
(F). A short summary of the charge; The medical establishment, by its inherent "NATURE OF THE BUSINESS" exhibits and establishes a MONOPOLY OVER THE PATIENT, akin to any other monopoly, exclusion of competition (by proximity, financial reasons, and life-threatening realities), and requires consent without security, for the patient.
(1) Evidence shall be presented; including hospital consent statements, pricefixing, contracts signed under DURESS, and evidence suitable to establish, "lack of free enterprise", for the patient. Free enterprise is DEFINED AS: an agreement, whereby either party involved may CHOOSE, to be involved, WITHOUT FEAR, of serious physical (health) consequences.
3. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: The Not-for-profit status used within the medical industry, REPRESENTS: expenditures for buildings, salaries, perks, etc, which are grossly excessive to need and thereby FAR BEYOND the stated objectives for which tax exempt status was allowed, by the taxpayer.
(A). The medical industry controls their own competition, through closed schooling, which is a monopoly over (indirectly controlling the, rate of charge), the patient/taxpayer, (a profit-taking).
(B). The LACK OF taxpayer protection, found within the Constitutional doctrine IS REPUGNANT, to the people.
The taxpayer deserves protection from the Not-for-Profit entity, as well as, the Government itself.
(C). Fixed or controlled rates used by the Government, within their medical expenditures (Medicare, etc) Represents a FAILURE to protect the citizen. They are aware of the problem, and only find an "illegal" (NOT free enterprise) solution, for control of profit by/for the beaurocracy, RATHER THAN, protection of the public in connection with, NOT-for-Profit status, and a Capitol gains tax or profiteering suit on such items as drug resale, etc, in For-profit entities.
THE DEMAND: PROTECT THE PEOPLE (Provide the means necessary to pursue and produce the public protection as constitutionally allowed), Establish suitable Boundaries, Remove the Monopoly, Protect the patient and establish FAIR BILLING which can be easily mediated. That the billing may HONESTLY reflect the ACTUAL WORK; as in every free (I, have an inherent Right) from oppression, controversy between people.
PROTECT THE TAXPAYER, by enforcing Not-for-Profit status. Establish the Boundary which cannot, under any circumstance or reason, be betrayed. That Boundary IS: All taxes shall be combined, as are applicable to the Majority, and a percentage of income shall be established, WHEREIN ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT shall not be allowed to tax (in any form) beyond, THIS WOULD INCLUDE taxes in the form of DEBT, INCURRED on behalf of the people. As found in the pleadings 3(B).
JUSRISDICTION AS FOLLOWS: Because there are NO distinct precedents from which to draw, an assembly of information is used. Being held with the Constitutional words: That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;.....laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Jurisdiction begins this FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE exercise within the word DUTY, as applied and commanded through Constitutional Doctrines. the citizen is required to DEFEND HIS/HER NATION, as necessary, when attacked. This is an obligation of citizenship, not a Right, insomuch as a duty! The definition of DUTY; is a moral or legal obligation, and in this case a constitutional obligation as well. The requirement to accept this responsibility is found in many documents, such as the oath of citizenship. Bill of Rights:.....a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to Reform, Alter, ........in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
This case demonstrates an effective "inside attack", on constitutional rights, and CANNOT be differentiated from an external assualt, in terms of destruction to citizens rights.
The necessity of the "Peaceful exercise of Judicial Review," is to: Admonish those in error, to rectify wrongs, and it FAIRLY control through appropriate Constitutional PRINCIPLES those Realities which define, VIRTUE AND PEACE associated with JUSTICE, FOR ALL. WE have a right as citizens to be concerned, to seek legal recourse and definition, and to demand a redress of grievances.
The Court has declared itself to be ,......."the supreme court resembles a constitutional convention in continuous session......(and suggests)...... it is very nearly the final interpreter of the Constitution." (Being just BELOW the people themselves). Therefore these questions BELONG, in the Court.
Monetary patient protection./taxpayer protection, within the confines of medical trauma can be effective ONLY as a percentage of income (apportioned to wealth). Eliminating insurance costs, government regulatory agency cost, beaurocracy cost, etc. Further defined in pleading ,2 (B) (1), court transcripts indicated therein.
Issue will be raised that the patient/doctor relationship is an employer/employee relationship wherein the employee/the patient; by virtue of, he/she has appeared at the emergency door through NEED (just as a worker takes a job through NEED); he/she has little or NO CONTROL; he/she is subjected to the monetary decisions of the doctor/hospital employer with NO REAL alternative. The situation is "an employee produces money, for the employer".
IF this is not so, then a contract exists wherein Pain, Torment, Threat of LIFE or LIMB; was used to induce signature to EXCESSIVE payments and interest, without significant recourse.
A SITUATION OR ABUSE COMMONLY CALLED, EXTORTION!
Issues raised will/shall also declare a constitutional background and Right, as defended in the preamble to the United States Constitution; that there are inherent and inalienable Rights, consistent with, "the basis and foundation of government" found within this case. And it is the intent of these pleadings to conform to the words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women are created Equal....", and at moments of medical trauma; " in need of protection through OUR Courts, and Governments and Law."
The Freedom of Discussion, within area's difficult for the public to understand, MUST BE given the expertise, provided by the Legal Process, that the people themselves may know, understand, assert, and protect themselves: BEING CERTAIN OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; This IS the TRUE FOUNDATION, of a government, by the people, for the people, and of the people.
I, James Frank Osterbur, do declare, the NEED exists for legal counsel, as provided by the Court, for this case. I am NOT a lawyer and this case DOES represent the public and as such is a distinctly public debt, and NOT a personal debt. The selection of an attorney should therefore be a "public" decision.
The defendant for the Medical Industry shall be Covenant Medical Center, Urbana,IL : By their presence in the initiation cases and their subsequent acknowledgement and acceptance through the warnings and descriptions given therein; being fully informed of the direction and substance and determination to bring this trial to court, were given sufficient opportunity to confront, or produce arguement, without sacrifice.
The Fundamental Questions: Does the medical patient control their Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities, OR is his/her situation FORCED? Does force explain the exorbitant cost of medical care ? Does the reality of Medical Trauma, "as an assembly of variables", each of function and life, apply to the singular word, HOSTAGE? Does the repression of honest choice, through medical trauma, establish to the American people, a guarantee, "as the members of a Union might:" to speak and defend and intercede between, this struggle and the greed of mankind? Does medicine, as we know it, become so conducive, that a state of MONOPOLY is inevitable? Does the meaning of "Business" belong: wherein a monopoly will not/can not be avoided? Does the Reality of death, pain, and disability, "cast such a pall of fear and timidity", over the patient that, liberty, honor, and FAIR play can/have been sacrificed?
Is freedom of the press: for the people, a restriction on the government, or both?
Terminology which does NOT encompass legal right to trial, is a Failure of Due Process?
The regulation or dissolution of unfair business practice is common!
JUSTICE IS A RESULT, NOT A CONCEPT!
Equality is the Recognition of Life!
These matters are literally about life, death, and property and cannot be brushed aside.
The Court has NO Authority to be neutral!
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RE: 94-2060
A CLASS ACTION SUIT
Plaintiff: the " common public citizen "
as represented by: James F. Osterbur
V.
Defendant: United States, Government
as represented by: the Attorney General's Office
State of Illinois, Government
as represented by: the Attorney General Office
the Medical Industry
as represented by: Covenant Medical Center
1400 west park
Urbana, Ill 60801
THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS BEGIN: The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The BILL OF RIGHTS
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONSTITUTION
The STATE OF ILLINOIS, CONSTITUTION
From Noble State bank v. Haskel (1911) 219 US 104, 31 S. ct 186, 55 l.ed 112.
A proceeding challanging the Depositors' Guaranty Fund. "It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs.
Canfield V. United States 167 US 518
"If then the legislature of the State thinks the public welfare requires the measure under consideration, analogy and principle are in favor of the power to enact it.
Driscoll V. Edison light and Power Co. 307 US 104, 59 S.ct 715, 88 L. ed 1134, (1939)
Justice Frankfurter: states "The only relevant function of law in dealing with this intersection of government and enterprise is to secure observance of those procedural safeguards in the exercise of legislative powers which are the historic foundations of due process".
as applied to: Those procedural safeguards are, the constitutional rights and duties of citizenship.
German Alliance Insurance Co. V. Lewis (1914) 233 US 389, 34 S.ct 612, 58 L.ed 1011
A pleading (insurance is a private business).
Justice Mckenna "Or to state it differently and to express an antithetical proposition, is the business of insurance so far affected with a public interest as to justify legislative regulation of its rates? And we mean a broad and definite public interest. In some degree the public interest is concerned in every transaction between men, the sum of the transactions constituting the activities of life. But there is something more special than this, something of more definite consequence, which makes the public interest that justifies regulatory legislation...... The transmission of intelligence is of cognate character......The basis of the ready concession of the power of regulation is the public interest....... and the "test of whether the use is public or not is whether a public trust is imposed upon the property and whether the public has a legal right to the use which cannot be denied."............In other words, the state has stepped in and imposed conditions upon the companies, restraining the absolute liberty which businesses strictly private are permitted to exercise.
Those regulations exhibit it to be the conception of the law-making bodies of the country without exception that the business of insurance so far affects the public welfare as to invoke and require governmental regulation. A conception so general cannot be without cause. The universal sense of a people cannot be accidental;........the companies have been said to be the mere machinery by which the inevitable losses by fire are distributed so as to fall as lightly as possible on the public at large, .............We may venture to observe that the price of insurance is not fixed over the counters of the companies by what ......but formed in the councils of the underwriters, promulgated in schedules of practically controlling constancy which the applicant for insurance is powerless to oppose and which, therefore, has led to the assertion that the business of insurance is of monopolistic character and that "it is illusory to speak of a liberty of contract."........We do not say this to belittle such rights or to exaggerate the effect of insurance, but to exhibit the principle which exists in all and brings all under the same governmental power....!
Munn V. Illinois (1876) 94 US 113, 24 L.ed 77
A pleading against rate fixing.
Chief Justice Waite: ....."a limitation of the powers of the states, it is old as a principle of civilized government........ the fourteenth (amendment) as a guaranty aganist any encroachments upon an acknowledged right of citizenship by the legislatures of the states.....private property is "affected with the public interest, it ceases to be private only"........accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore , one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created........may be a "virtual" monopoly......And it must also be conceded that it is a business in which the whole public has a direct and positive interest.........They entered upon their business and provided themselves with the means to carry it on subject to this condition. If they did not wish to submit themselves to such interference, they should not have clothed the public with an interest in their concerns.
West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish 300 US 379, 57 S. ct. 578, 81 L.ed. 703, (1937)
Minimum wage regulation
The principle which must control our decision is not in doubt. The Constitutional provision invoked is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governing the states, as the due process clause invoked in the Adkins case governed Congress. In each case the violation alleged by those attacking minimum wage regulation for women is deprivation of freedom of contract. What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has its history and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, moral and welfare of the people. Liberty under the constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process......
There is additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenceless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well being but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. ......The legislature "is free to recognize degrees of harm and it may confine its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest.".......that it is meant that the constitution is made up of living words that apply to every new condition which they include, the statement is quite true. But to say, if that be intended, that the words of the constitution mean today what they did not mean when written-that is, that they do not apply to a situation now to which they would have applied then-is to rob that instrument of the essential element which continues it in force as the people have made it until they, and not their official agents, have made it otherwise....The judicial function is that of interpretation; it does not include the power of amendment under the guise of interpretation.
Holden V. Hardy 169 US 366
Regulation of miners hours
.....where we pointed out the inequilty in the footing of the parties.
"The legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experience of legislators in many states has corroborated, that the proprietors of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an equality, and that their interest are, to a certain extent, conflicting. The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible from their employee's, while the latter are often induced by the fear of discharge to conform to regulations which their judgement, fairly exercised, would pronounce to be detrimental to their health or strength. In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers are practically constrained to obey them. In such cases self-interest is often an unsafe guide, and the legislature may properly interpose its authority."
United States V. Trans-Missouri Freight Association 166 US 290, 17 S. ct. 540, 41 L. ed 1007 (1897)
Involving a contract......for the maintenance of rates and the prevention of competition, the court held that contracts in restraint of trade were prohibited by the act whether they were or were not in themselves reasonable. (Clayton Act)
(as applied to) Section 1, of the Sherman Act provides:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states...is hereby declared to be illegal"
(as applied to) The concept of interstate applies to; Knowledge directly flows from state to state, doctors are educated within various states, suppliers of drugs, supplies, etc.
Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co. 272 US 365, 47 S.ct. 114, 71 L.ed. 303 (1926)
Justice Sutherland...."for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise.....'
United States V. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, Singleton and Memphis and Charleston R. Co. 109 US 3, 3 S ct. 18, 27 L. ed 835 (1883)
"under the first and second sections of the act of Congress passed March 1, 1875 entitled an act to protect citizens in their civil and legal rights, "popularly known as the civil rights act."
Justice Bradley....."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the united States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere "brutum fulmen, " the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropritate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state laws and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it.
In the legal Tender Cases. 12 wall 457, 20 L.ed 287 (1871)
The court in justifying the power of congress...."and here it is to be observed it is not indispensible to the existence of any power claimed for the federal government that it can be found specified in the words of the constitution, or clearly and directly traceable to some of the specified powers. Its existence may be deduced fairly from more than one of the substantive powers expressly defined, or from them all combined. It is allowable to group together any number of them and infer from them all that the power claimed has been conferred."
Whitney V. California 274 US 357, 47 S. ct. 641, 71 L ed. 1095 (1927)
....Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an enert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the american government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discusssion, they eschewed silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. ........It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it.
Grosjean V. American Press Co. 297 US 233, 56 S. ct. 444, 80 L.ed 660 (1936)
Involving a Louisiana act of 1934 imposing a license tax of 2% upon the gross receipts of the business of advertising in newspapers or publications having a circualtion of more than 20,000 copies a week, the court held that the tax, the effect of which was both to curtail the revenue of newspapers and to restrict their circulation, was "bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees, but because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties."
DE JONGE V. OREGON 299 US 353, 57 S ct. 255, 81 L. Ed. 278 (1937)
Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution...The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. As this court said in United States V. cruikahank, 92 US 542,552; "the very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment of the federal constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgement by congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institution, principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause....
These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite........The people through their legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.......the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the VERY FOUNDATION OF Constitutional government.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING. 312 US 321, 61 S.ct. 568, 85 L. Ed. 855, (1941)
Justice Frankfurter: ...Such a ban of free communication is inconsistent with the guaranty of freedom of speech. That a state has ample power to regulate the local problems thrown up by modern industry and to preserve the peace is axiomatic. But not even these essential powers are unfettered by the requirements of the Bill of Rights. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined by the notion of a particular state regarding the wise limits of an injunction in an industrial dispute, whether those limits be defined by statute or by the judicial organ of the state. A state cannot exclude workingmen from peacefully exercising the right of free communication by drawing the circle of economic competition between employers and workers so small as to contain only an employer and those directly employed by him. The interdependence of economic interest of all engaged in the same industry has become a commonplace. American Steel Foundries V. Tri-City Central Trades Council,, 257 US 184, 209. The right of free communication cannot therefore be mutilated by denying it to workers, in a dispute with an employer, even though they are not in his employ. Communication by such employees of the facts of a dispute, deemed by them to be relevant to their interest, can no more be barred because of concern for the economic interests against which they are seeking to enlist public opinion than could the utterance protected in Thornhill's `case. "Members of a union might , without special statutory authorization by a state, make known the facts of a labor dispute, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution." Senn V. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 US 468, 478.
Thornhill V. Alabama 310 US 88, 60 S.ct. 736, 84 L.ed. 1093 (1940)
The safeguarding of these rights to the ends that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth..........The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment . The exigencies of the colonial period and the efforts to secure freedom from oppressive administration developed a broadened conception of these liberties as adequate to supply the public need for information and education with respect to the significant issues of the times...
Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.
Meyer V. Nebraska 262 US 390, 43 S. ct 625, 67 L. ed 1042 (1923)
teaching in a foreign language
While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ....The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton V. Steele, 152 US 133, 137..........
That the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the equality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the constitution extends to all, to those who speak ..........but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the constitution-a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.....
Twining V. New Jersey 211 US 78, 29 S.ct 14, 53 L.ed 97 (1908)
Law of the Land
Justice Harlan, dissenting (notes)- The clause in Magna Charta to which the court refers in the instant case and in the Hurtado case reads as follows (Art. 39):
No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor shall we go upon him nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land {per legem terrae}.
In the Hoboken Land case,; the court accepted Lord Coke's identification of "due process" with the "law of the Land" in Magna Charta; and this has been accepted by the courts in later cases, although questioned by scholars.
As to the meaning of the phrase "law of the land" the definition given by Webster, which the court quotes in the Hurtado case, is taken from his argument in the Dartmouth college case. The definition reads in full, as follows:
By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. V Grosjean, 301 US 412, 57 S. ct 772, 81 L.ed 1193 (1937)
......The law rates the privileges enjoyed in Louisiana according to the nature and extent of that privilege in the light of the advantages, the capacity, and the competitive ability of the chain's stores in Louisiana considered not in themselves, as if they constituted the whole organization, but in their setting as integral parts of a much larger organization.
Taxation may be made the implement of the exercise of the state's police power; and proper and reasonable discrimination between classes to promote fair competitive conditions and to equalize economic advantages is therefore lawful.
Wilson V. New 243 US 332, 37 S.ct 298, 61 L. ed 755 (1917)
....That the business of ....is in a sense a public business because of the interest of society in the continued operation and rightful conduct of such business and that the public interest begets a public right of regulation to the full extent necessary to secure and protect it, is settled by so many decisions, state and federal........But taking all these propositions as undoubted, if the situation which we have described and with which the act of congress dealt be taken into view, that is, the dispute between the employers and employees as to a standard of wages, their failure to agree, the resulting absence of such standard, the entire interruption of interstate commerce which was threatened, and the infinite injury to the public interest which was imminent, it would seem inevitably to result that the power to regulate necessarily obtained and was subject to be applied to the extent necessary to provide a remedy for the situation, which included the power to deal with the dispute, to provide by appropriate action for a standard of wages to fill the want of one caused by the failure to exert the private right on the subject and to give effect by appropriate legislation to the regulations thus adopted. This must be unless it can be said that the right to so regulate as to save and protect the public interest did not apply to a case where the destruction of the public right was imminent as the result of a dispute between the parties and their consequent failure to establish by private agreement the standard of wages which was essential; in other words that the existence of the public right and the public power to preserve it was wholly under the control of the private right to establish a standard by agreement. Nor is it an answer to this view to suggest that the situation was one of emergency and that emergency cannot be made the source of power.. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2. The proposition begs the question, since although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed. If act which, if done, would interrupt, if not destroy, ........by anticipation legislatively prevented, by the same token the power to regulate may be exercised to guard against the cessation ........threatened by a failure of employers and employees to agree as to the standard of wages, such standard being an essential prerequisite to the uninterrupted flow......Again , what purpose would be subserved by all the regulations established to secure the enjoyment by the public of an efficient and reasonable service, if there was no power in government to prevent all service from being destroyed?
Further yet what benefits would flow to society by recognizing the right, because of the public interest, to regulate the relation of employer and employee and of the employees among themselves and to give to the latter peculiar and special rights safeguarding their persons, protecting them in case of accident and giving efficient remedies for that purpose, if there was no power to remedy a situation created by a dispute between employers and employees as to rate of wages, which if not remedied, would leave the public helpless, the whole people ruined and all the homes of the land submitted to a danger of the most serious character?
The court thus upheld the constitutionality of the Adamson Act, which provided for an eight-hour day and appropriate wage standards for interstate railway employees. The court declared that, although congress could not control or prevent collective agreement on wages on interstate railways or fail to enforce a v oluntary wage agreement, the failure of employees and employers to agree establishes a condition which congress may resolve by fixing wages or requiring arbitration, such authority being justified by congress's responsibility for maintaining the uninterrupted flow of commerce.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CIVIL CASES; EMINENT DOMAIN
Knox V. Lee, 12 Wall , 457, 20 L.ed 287 (1871)
the court held that neither the due process clause nor the provision for just compensation covered a claim for "consequential damages" resulting from the exercise of lawful power.
Block V. Hirsh 256 US 135, 41 S. ct 458, 65 L. ed 865 (1921)
....We do not perceive any reason for denying the justification held good ..........to a law limiting the property rights now in question if the public exigency requires that. The reasons are of a different nature but they certainly are not less pressing. Congress has stated the unquestionable embarrassment of government and danger to the public health in the existing condition of things. The ....is necessarily monopolized in comparatively few hands, and letting portions of it is as much a business as any other. Housing is a necessary of life. All the elements of a public interest justifying some degree of public control are present. The only matter that seems to us open to debate is whether the statute goes too far.
Wolff Packing Co. V. Court of Industrial Relations 262 Us 522, 43 S. ct 630, 67 L.ed 1103 (1923)
(3) Businesses which though not public at their inception may be fairly said to have arisen to be such and have become subject in consequence to some government regulation. They have come to hold such a peculiar relation to the public that this is superimposed upon them. In the language of the cases, the owner by devoting his business to the public use, in effect grants the public and interest in that use and subjects himself to public regulation to the extent of that interest although the property continues to belong to its private owner and to be entitled to protection accordingly......
In nearly all the businesses included under the third head above, the thing which gave the public interest was the indispensable nature of the service and the exorbitant charges and arbitrary control to which the public might be subjected without regulation........; but when the public becomes so peculiarly dependent upon a particular business that one engaging therein subjects himself to a more intimate public regulation is only to be determined by the process of exclusion and inclusion and to gradual establishment of a line of distinction.
Adkins V. Children's Hospital 261 US 525, 569, 43 S.ct. 394, 67 L. ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238
....The truth seems to me to be that, subject to compensation when compenstion is due, the Legislature may forbid or restrict any business when it has a sufficient force of public opinion behind it.
Mugler V. Kansas 123 US 623, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205.
.... But if the people of the state of New York speaking by their authorized voice say that they want it, I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent their having their will.
Standard Oil V. United States 221 US 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911)
Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the court ordered the dissolution of the standard oil company of new jersey not because of its huge size but because it had used its economic power through pricing and other manipulative policies to restrain trade unreasonably (rule of reason).
Goldfarb V. Virginia State Bar (1975) 421 US 773, 95 S.ct 2004, 44 L. Ed 572.
The court held that minimum fees suggested by the Fairfax county bar association and in fact enforced by the state bar association constituted price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court reasoned that ..........The court rejected the bar association defense that the Sherman Antitrust Act was not intended by congress to apply to a learned profession because a lawyer, in conducting a title examination, renders a service in return for money and this is commerce.
Martin V. Hunter's Lessee 1 Wheat. 304, 4 L. Ed 97 (1816)
.....The supreme Court declared: (a) that the Constitution "was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by "the people of the United States".
New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254, 84 S.CT 710, 11 L. Ed 2nd 686.
The court held that libel laws cannot be used to "cast a pall of fear and timidity" on the press Alabama courts had awarded heavy damages to Birmingham law enforcement officers who had sued the new york times, for libeling them in a paid political advertisement which it published. The court reversed this decision, holding that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open"; that injury to an official's reputation "affords no warrant for suppressing speech that would otherwise be free" ; and that a public official may not recover damages for libel unless he can prove actual malice, that is that the statement was made "with knowledge that is was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Chambers V. Florida (1940) 309 US 227, 60 S. ct 472, 84 L. Ed. 716
The court held that due process of law was denied when the police obtained "sunrise confessions" from four Negroes after they had been questioned for five days in the absence of friends, advisers, or counsel and "under circumstances calculated to break the strongest nerves and the stoutest resistance."
Crandell V. Nevada (1867) 6 Wall 35, 18 L. Ed 745
Court declares........"a person's constitutional privilege, to come to the seat of his government ... and to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports...to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several states."
McCulloch V. Maryland 4 wheat. 316, 4 L. ED. 579 (1819)
Chief Justice Marshall: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."
Let it be re-entered, the establishment and protection of fundamental constitutional principles through Judical Review, is an established and significant feature of the American Constitutional system. That a citizen has a Duty and a Right, to present to the Court significant breeches of these fundamental principles is, "A MOST BASIC, CIVIL POWER"!
RE: 94-2060
This Case comes to court by reason of the MONOPOLY that clearly exists in medicine, and the reality that government enforces and allows this monopoly to stand.
THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
Further laws which might produce a Fair or Equal footing, between the public and the medical profession, DO NOT EXIST!
Evidence exists that the "Business of Medicine" can control Basic Liberties, forcing compliance without reasonable legal contest over cost.
The public is openly VULNERABLE, yet the medical establishment is CLOSED, access denied!
The individual is open to evaluation and therefrom terminology which cannot adequately describe ANY PERSON. Medicine dictates and allows NO retaliation.
The Realities involved in medical trauma transcend and eliminate ALL possibilities of free enterprise.
The taxpayer provides ANYTHING medicine asks, while medicine controls ALL aspects of patient care.
The TAXPAYER HAS LONG BEEN ABUSED!
The taxpayer/patient must fight alone against unfair pricing policies.
ALL these things the court finds, "INCOMPREHENSIBLE", even as seen within the plain and simple words pg 4, reply to order mar 18,1994. "each of which align specifically with the public right to a legal redress of grievances, as the purpose of this lawsuit".
The court represented by Judge Harold A. Baker. finds the constitutional framework of a legal redress of grievances, as defined by the first amendment to be, "frivolous".
The court also rejects known "medical business", realities of trauma, billing, etc, as irrational OR unsupported: Directly in violation of my right to DUE PROCESS. Judgement IS illegal outside of the courtroom. This supposition is supported from court documents, this case and case 94-2001.
Let it be known JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY, through and HONEST evalution of fundamental realities is the purpose and the demand. Constitutional Authority DOES belong to the people.
ITEM #63
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
Central district of Illinois
A CLASS ACTION SUIT.
RE: 94-2060
PLAINTIFF: the common public citizen
represented by: James F. Osterbur
V.
DEFENDANT: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Represented by: the ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
for the government; Janet Reno, or as appointed.
DEFENDANT: STATE OF ILLINOIS
Represented by: the ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
for the government: Roland Burris, or as appointed.
DEFENDANT: THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY
Represented by: Covenant Medical Center.
1400 west Park
Urbana, Ill 60801
When a situation exists, of national interest, which can be seen as the basis and foundation of Society at peace, that is contrary to the common benefit, protection and security of the people, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter or require regulation in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public good, and thereby establish, through definition, FAIR PRINCIPLES AND LAW, for future and immediate, legislative action.
1. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: Predilection of the legislature through action or inaction AS: Regulation toward (in favor of) the medical industry and against the citizenry as a whole. BILL OF RIGHTS; section 4. That NO man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community.......
2. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: Usage by the medical industry of " illegal constitutional limitations on the rights of citizenship."
(A). Section 2-622 illinois code of civil procedure, REQUIRING, acknowledgment/allowance, by the medical profession BEFORE court controversies can exist, and thereby prejudge, PRIOR TO: Trial by Jury, OR in place of; A MONOPOLY.
(B). Denial of Amendment 7; which allows, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved....."
(1) Evidence shall be presented in the form of, State of Illinois: 92s1561 Champaign County, 6th district, 92c1222 Champaign County, 6th district, Gen 4-93-0847 Appellate Court, 4th district, and 76450 Supreme Court, AS A BEGINNING. These trials were initiated in relation to; James F. Osterbur, appearing at Covenant Medical Center EMERGENCY DOOR, complaining of a heart problem (thought to be preliminary heart attack) and (his own words) being used, abused, rejected, OVER BILLED with NO LEGAL RECOURSE, and suffering serious consequences from that incident. Trials held in 92s1561, and 92c1222, were by Judge, BUT were dismissed through the LACK OF LAW, or minor procedural infraction, and NOT for any other reason.
(C). Amendment 13 precludes, "neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE........"
(1) Evidence shall be submitted indicating medical trauma, PRECLUDES free enterprise situations, which can thereby induce a "MONETARY IMPRISONMENT", without the patients' being at liberty to dissent or choose. NOT FREE ENTERPRISE, SUBJECTS, the patient to restricted markets beyond their control; i.e. Opportunity to select the drug supplier of choice, etc, does NOT exist!
(2) Evidence shall further be submitted, the medical trauma patient is held "IMPRISONED", to the discretion of "COST PLUS ANYTHING THEY WANT", in relation to supplies, drugs, etc.
The test; Does the Restriction of free market forces constitute price fixing? Does the patient, finding him/herself attacked by medical trauma, deserve the minimal protection of free market forces? Neither the hospital Nor the doctor, produce drugs, they merely represent a common business "middleman", capable of extracting more than deserved, due to patient vulnerability.
(D). Denial of Amendment 1: Restricted FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, limiting the freedom of choice, freedom of speech.
(1) Evidence shall be submitted examining the Right of the public to be informed, REGARDING such matters as doctor and hospital performance, and medical reliability (the reward of the procedure/its possible costs). Medicine, IS a business affected with the public interest, and NO LESS CRITICAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL, than freedom of the press is to other democratic (freedom./liberty) issues.
(E) Usurpation of Amendment 9: The right of the people to be free from terminology which denies or disparages their Right of Privacy, and consequent freedom. Those which are NOT subject to criminal punishments.
(1). Evidence shall be presented that defines; terminology is used without consent or opportunity for trial, a TRUE invasion of privacy, and fundamental control by others, WITHOUT sufficient cause, authority, or accuracy.
(F). A short summary of the charge; The medical establishment, by its inherent "NATURE OF THE BUSINESS" exhibits and establishes a MONOPOLY OVER THE PATIENT, akin to any other monopoly, exclusion of competition (by proximity, financial reasons, and life-threatening realities), and requires consent without security, for the patient.
(1) Evidence shall be presented; including hospital consent statements, price fixing, contracts signed under DURESS, and evidence suitable to establish, "lack of free enterprise", for the patient. Free enterprise is DEFINED AS: an agreement, whereby either party involved may CHOOSE, to be involved, WITHOUT FEAR, of serious physical (health) consequences.
3. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: The Not-for-profit status used within the medical industry, REPRESENTS: expenditures for buildings, salaries, perks, etc, which are grossly excessive to need and thereby FAR BEYOND the stated objectives for which tax exempt status was allowed, by the taxpayer.
(A). The medical industry controls their own competition, through closed schooling, which is a monopoly over (indirectly controlling the, rate of charge), the patient/taxpayer, (a profit-taking).
(B). The LACK OF taxpayer protection, found within the Constitutional doctrine IS REPUGNANT, to the people.
The taxpayer deserves protection from the Not-for-Profit entity, as well as, the Government itself.
(C). Fixed or controlled rates used by the Government, within their medical expenditures (Medicare, etc) Represents a FAILURE to protect the citizen. They are aware of the problem, and only find an "illegal" (NOT free enterprise) solution, for control of profit by/for the bureaucracy, RATHER THAN, protection of the public in connection with, NOT-for-Profit status, and a Capitol gains tax or profiteering suit on such items as drug resale, etc, in For-profit entities.
THE DEMAND: PROTECT THE PEOPLE (Provide the means necessary to pursue and produce the public protection as constitutionally allowed), Establish suitable Boundaries, Remove the Monopoly, Protect the patient and establish FAIR BILLING which can be easily mediated. That the billing may HONESTLY reflect the ACTUAL WORK; as in every free (I, have an inherent Right) from oppression, controversy between people.
PROTECT THE TAXPAYER, by enforcing Not-for-Profit status. Establish the Boundary which cannot, under any circumstance or reason, be betrayed. That Boundary IS: All taxes shall be combined, as are applicable to the Majority, and a percentage of income shall be established, WHEREIN ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT shall not be allowed to tax (in any form) beyond, THIS WOULD INCLUDE taxes in the form of DEBT, INCURRED on behalf of the people. As found in the pleadings 3(B).
JURISDICTION AS FOLLOWS: Because there are NO distinct precedents from which to draw, an assembly of information is used. Being held with the Constitutional words: That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;.....laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Jurisdiction begins this FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE exercise within the word DUTY, as applied and commanded through Constitutional Doctrines. the citizen is required to DEFEND HIS/HER NATION, as necessary, when attacked. This is an obligation of citizenship, not a Right, insomuch as a duty! The definition of DUTY; is a moral or legal obligation, and in this case a constitutional obligation as well. The requirement to accept this responsibility is found in many documents, such as the oath of citizenship. Bill of Rights:.....a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to Reform, Alter, ........in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
This case demonstrates an effective "inside attack", on constitutional rights, and CANNOT be differentiated from an external assault, in terms of destruction to citizens rights.
The necessity of the "Peaceful exercise of Judicial Review," is to: Admonish those in error, to rectify wrongs, and it FAIRLY control through appropriate Constitutional PRINCIPLES those Realities which define, VIRTUE AND PEACE associated with JUSTICE, FOR ALL. WE have a right as citizens to be concerned, to seek legal recourse and definition, and to demand a redress of grievances.
The Court has declared itself to be ,......."the supreme court resembles a constitutional convention in continuous session......(and suggests)...... it is very nearly the final interpreter of the Constitution." (Being just BELOW the people themselves). Therefore these questions BELONG, in the Court.
Monetary patient protection./taxpayer protection, within the confines of medical trauma can be effective ONLY as a percentage of income (apportioned to wealth). Eliminating insurance costs, government regulatory agency cost, bureaucracy cost, etc. Further defined in pleading ,2 (B) (1), court transcripts indicated therein.
Issue will be raised that the patient/doctor relationship is an employer/employee relationship wherein the employee/the patient; by virtue of, he/she has appeared at the emergency door through NEED (just as a worker takes a job through NEED); he/she has little or NO CONTROL; he/she is subjected to the monetary decisions of the doctor/hospital employer with NO REAL alternative. The situation is "an employee produces money, for the employer".
IF this is not so, then a contract exists wherein Pain, Torment, Threat of LIFE or LIMB; was used to induce signature to EXCESSIVE payments and interest, without significant recourse.
A SITUATION OR ABUSE COMMONLY CALLED, EXTORTION!
Issues raised will/shall also declare a constitutional background and Right, as defended in the preamble to the United States Constitution; that there are inherent and inalienable Rights, consistent with, "the basis and foundation of government" found within this case. And it is the intent of these pleadings to conform to the words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women are created Equal....", and at moments of medical trauma; " in need of protection through OUR Courts, and Governments and Law."
The Freedom of Discussion, within area's difficult for the public to understand, MUST BE given the expertise, provided by the Legal Process, that the people themselves may know, understand, assert, and protect themselves: BEING CERTAIN OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; This IS the TRUE FOUNDATION, of a government, by the people, for the people, and of the people.
I, James Frank Osterbur, do declare, the NEED exists for legal counsel, as provided by the Court, for this case. I am NOT a lawyer and this case DOES represent the public and as such is a distinctly public debt, and NOT a personal debt. The selection of an attorney should therefore be a "public" decision.
The defendant for the Medical Industry shall be Covenant Medical Center, Urbana, IL : By their presence in the initiation cases and their subsequent acknowledgment and acceptance through the warnings and descriptions given therein; being fully informed of the direction and substance and determination to bring this trial to court, were given sufficient opportunity to confront, or produce argument, without sacrifice.
The Fundamental Questions: Does the medical patient control their Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities, OR is his/her situation FORCED? Does force explain the exorbitant cost of medical care ? Does the reality of Medical Trauma, "as an assembly of variables", each of function and life, apply to the singular word, HOSTAGE? Does the repression of honest choice, through medical trauma, establish to the American people, a guarantee, "as the members of a Union might:" to speak and defend and intercede between, this struggle and the greed of mankind? Does medicine, as we know it, become so conducive, that a state of MONOPOLY is inevitable? Does the meaning of "Business" belong: wherein a monopoly will not/can not be avoided? Does the Reality of death, pain, and disability, "cast such a pall of fear and timidity", over the patient that, liberty, honor, and FAIR play can/have been sacrificed?
Is freedom of the press: for the people, a restriction on the government, or both?
Terminology which does NOT encompass legal right to trial, is a Failure of Due Process?
The regulation or dissolution of unfair business practice is common!
JUSTICE IS A RESULT, NOT A CONCEPT!
Equality is the Recognition of Life!
These matters are literally about life, death, and property and cannot be brushed aside.
The Court has NO Authority to be neutral!
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RE: 94-2060
A CLASS ACTION SUIT
Plaintiff: the " common public citizen "
as represented by: James F. Osterbur
V.
Defendant: United States, Government
as represented by: the Attorney General's Office
State of Illinois, Government
as represented by: the Attorney General Office
the Medical Industry
as represented by: Covenant Medical Center
1400 west park
Urbana, Ill 60801
THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS BEGIN: The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The BILL OF RIGHTS
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONSTITUTION
The STATE OF ILLINOIS, CONSTITUTION
From Noble State bank v. Haskel (1911) 219 US 104, 31 S. ct 186, 55 l.ed 112.
A proceeding challenging the Depositors' Guaranty Fund. "It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs.
Canfield V. United States 167 US 518
"If then the legislature of the State thinks the public welfare requires the measure under consideration, analogy and principle are in favor of the power to enact it.
Driscoll V. Edison light and Power Co. 307 US 104, 59 S.ct 715, 88 L. ed 1134, (1939)
Justice Frankfurter: states "The only relevant function of law in dealing with this intersection of government and enterprise is to secure observance of those procedural safeguards in the exercise of legislative powers which are the historic foundations of due process".
as applied to: Those procedural safeguards are, the constitutional rights and duties of citizenship.
German Alliance Insurance Co. V. Lewis (1914) 233 US 389, 34 S.ct 612, 58 L.ed 1011
A pleading (insurance is a private business).
Justice Mckenna "Or to state it differently and to express an antithetical proposition, is the business of insurance so far affected with a public interest as to justify legislative regulation of its rates? And we mean a broad and definite public interest. In some degree the public interest is concerned in every transaction between men, the sum of the transactions constituting the activities of life. But there is something more special than this, something of more definite consequence, which makes the public interest that justifies regulatory legislation...... The transmission of intelligence is of cognate character......The basis of the ready concession of the power of regulation is the public interest....... and the "test of whether the use is public or not is whether a public trust is imposed upon the property and whether the public has a legal right to the use which cannot be denied."............In other words, the state has stepped in and imposed conditions upon the companies, restraining the absolute liberty which businesses strictly private are permitted to exercise.
Those regulations exhibit it to be the conception of the law-making bodies of the country without exception that the business of insurance so far affects the public welfare as to invoke and require governmental regulation. A conception so general cannot be without cause. The universal sense of a people cannot be accidental;........the companies have been said to be the mere machinery by which the inevitable losses by fire are distributed so as to fall as lightly as possible on the public at large, .............We may venture to observe that the price of insurance is not fixed over the counters of the companies by what ......but formed in the councils of the underwriters, promulgated in schedules of practically controlling constancy which the applicant for insurance is powerless to oppose and which, therefore, has led to the assertion that the business of insurance is of monopolistic character and that "it is illusory to speak of a liberty of contract."........We do not say this to belittle such rights or to exaggerate the effect of insurance, but to exhibit the principle which exists in all and brings all under the same governmental power....!
Munn V. Illinois (1876) 94 US 113, 24 L.ed 77
A pleading against rate fixing.
Chief Justice Waite: ....."a limitation of the powers of the states, it is old as a principle of civilized government........ the fourteenth (amendment) as a guaranty against any encroachments upon an acknowledged right of citizenship by the legislatures of the states.....private property is "affected with the public interest, it ceases to be private only"........accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore , one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created........may be a "virtual" monopoly......And it must also be conceded that it is a business in which the whole public has a direct and positive interest.........They entered upon their business and provided themselves with the means to carry it on subject to this condition. If they did not wish to submit themselves to such interference, they should not have clothed the public with an interest in their concerns.
West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish 300 US 379, 57 S. ct. 578, 81 L.ed. 703, (1937)
Minimum wage regulation
The principle which must control our decision is not in doubt. The Constitutional provision invoked is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governing the states, as the due process clause invoked in the Adkins case governed Congress. In each case the violation alleged by those attacking minimum wage regulation for women is deprivation of freedom of contract. What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has its history and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, moral and welfare of the people. Liberty under the constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process......
There is additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well being but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. ......The legislature "is free to recognize degrees of harm and it may confine its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest.".......that it is meant that the constitution is made up of living words that apply to every new condition which they include, the statement is quite true. But to say, if that be intended, that the words of the constitution mean today what they did not mean when written-that is, that they do not apply to a situation now to which they would have applied then-is to rob that instrument of the essential element which continues it in force as the people have made it until they, and not their official agents, have made it otherwise....The judicial function is that of interpretation; it does not include the power of amendment under the guise of interpretation.
Holden V. Hardy 169 US 366
Regulation of miners hours
.....where we pointed out the inequality in the footing of the parties.
"The legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experience of legislators in many states has corroborated, that the proprietors of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an equality, and that their interest are, to a certain extent, conflicting. The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible from their employee's, while the latter are often induced by the fear of discharge to conform to regulations which their judgement, fairly exercised, would pronounce to be detrimental to their health or strength. In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers are practically constrained to obey them. In such cases self-interest is often an unsafe guide, and the legislature may properly interpose its authority."
United States V. Trans-Missouri Freight Association 166 US 290, 17 S. ct. 540, 41 L. ed 1007 (1897)
Involving a contract......for the maintenance of rates and the prevention of competition, the court held that contracts in restraint of trade were prohibited by the act whether they were or were not in themselves reasonable. (Clayton Act)
(as applied to) Section 1, of the Sherman Act provides:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states...is hereby declared to be illegal"
(as applied to) The concept of interstate applies to; Knowledge directly flows from state to state, doctors are educated within various states, suppliers of drugs, supplies, etc.
Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co. 272 US 365, 47 S.ct. 114, 71 L.ed. 303 (1926)
Justice Sutherland...."for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise.....'
United States V. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, Singleton and Memphis and Charleston R. Co. 109 US 3, 3 S ct. 18, 27 L. ed 835 (1883)
"under the first and second sections of the act of Congress passed March 1, 1875 entitled an act to protect citizens in their civil and legal rights, "popularly known as the civil rights act."
Justice Bradley....."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the united States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere "brutum fulmen, " the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state laws and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it.
In the legal Tender Cases. 12 wall 457, 20 L.ed 287 (1871)
The court in justifying the power of congress...."and here it is to be observed it is not indispensable to the existence of any power claimed for the federal government that it can be found specified in the words of the constitution, or clearly and directly traceable to some of the specified powers. Its existence may be deduced fairly from more than one of the substantive powers expressly defined, or from them all combined. It is allowable to group together any number of them and infer from them all that the power claimed has been conferred."
Whitney V. California 274 US 357, 47 S. ct. 641, 71 L ed. 1095 (1927)
....Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the american government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. ........It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it.
Grosjean V. American Press Co. 297 US 233, 56 S. ct. 444, 80 L.ed 660 (1936)
Involving a Louisiana act of 1934 imposing a license tax of 2% upon the gross receipts of the business of advertising in newspapers or publications having a circulation of more than 20,000 copies a week, the court held that the tax, the effect of which was both to curtail the revenue of newspapers and to restrict their circulation, was "bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees, but because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties."
DE JONGE V. OREGON 299 US 353, 57 S ct. 255, 81 L. Ed. 278 (1937)
Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution...The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. As this court said in United States V. cruikahank, 92 US 542,552; "the very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment of the federal constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgement by congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institution, principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause....
These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite........The people through their legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.......the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the VERY FOUNDATION OF Constitutional government.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING. 312 US 321, 61 S.ct. 568, 85 L. Ed. 855, (1941)
Justice Frankfurter: ...Such a ban of free communication is inconsistent with the guaranty of freedom of speech. That a state has ample power to regulate the local problems thrown up by modern industry and to preserve the peace is axiomatic. But not even these essential powers are unfettered by the requirements of the Bill of Rights. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined by the notion of a particular state regarding the wise limits of an injunction in an industrial dispute, whether those limits be defined by statute or by the judicial organ of the state. A state cannot exclude workingmen from peacefully exercising the right of free communication by drawing the circle of economic competition between employers and workers so small as to contain only an employer and those directly employed by him. The interdependence of economic interest of all engaged in the same industry has become a commonplace. American Steel Foundries V. Tri-City Central Trades Council,, 257 US 184, 209. The right of free communication cannot therefore be mutilated by denying it to workers, in a dispute with an employer, even though they are not in his employ. Communication by such employees of the facts of a dispute, deemed by them to be relevant to their interest, can no more be barred because of concern for the economic interests against which they are seeking to enlist public opinion than could the utterance protected in Thornhill's `case. "Members of a union might , without special statutory authorization by a state, make known the facts of a labor dispute, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution." Senn V. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 US 468, 478.
Thornhill V. Alabama 310 US 88, 60 S.ct. 736, 84 L.ed. 1093 (1940)
The safeguarding of these rights to the ends that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth..........The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment . The exigencies of the colonial period and the efforts to secure freedom from oppressive administration developed a broadened conception of these liberties as adequate to supply the public need for information and education with respect to the significant issues of the times...
Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.
Meyer V. Nebraska 262 US 390, 43 S. ct 625, 67 L. ed 1042 (1923)
teaching in a foreign language
While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ....The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton V. Steele, 152 US 133, 137..........
That the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the equality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the constitution extends to all, to those who speak ..........but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the constitution-a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.....
Twining V. New Jersey 211 US 78, 29 S.ct 14, 53 L.ed 97 (1908)
Law of the Land
Justice Harlan, dissenting (notes)- The clause in Magna Charta to which the court refers in the instant case and in the Hurtado case reads as follows (Art. 39):
No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor shall we go upon him nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land {per legem terrae}.
In the Hoboken Land case,; the court accepted Lord Coke's identification of "due process" with the "law of the Land" in Magna Charta; and this has been accepted by the courts in later cases, although questioned by scholars.
As to the meaning of the phrase "law of the land" the definition given by Webster, which the court quotes in the Hurtado case, is taken from his argument in the Dartmouth college case. The definition reads in full, as follows:
By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. V Grosjean, 301 US 412, 57 S. ct 772, 81 L.ed 1193 (1937)
......The law rates the privileges enjoyed in Louisiana according to the nature and extent of that privilege in the light of the advantages, the capacity, and the competitive ability of the chain's stores in Louisiana considered not in themselves, as if they constituted the whole organization, but in their setting as integral parts of a much larger organization.
Taxation may be made the implement of the exercise of the state's police power; and proper and reasonable discrimination between classes to promote fair competitive conditions and to equalize economic advantages is therefore lawful.
Wilson V. New 243 US 332, 37 S.ct 298, 61 L. ed 755 (1917)
....That the business of ....is in a sense a public business because of the interest of society in the continued operation and rightful conduct of such business and that the public interest begets a public right of regulation to the full extent necessary to secure and protect it, is settled by so many decisions, state and federal........But taking all these propositions as undoubted, if the situation which we have described and with which the act of congress dealt be taken into view, that is, the dispute between the employers and employees as to a standard of wages, their failure to agree, the resulting absence of such standard, the entire interruption of interstate commerce which was threatened, and the infinite injury to the public interest which was imminent, it would seem inevitably to result that the power to regulate necessarily obtained and was subject to be applied to the extent necessary to provide a remedy for the situation, which included the power to deal with the dispute, to provide by appropriate action for a standard of wages to fill the want of one caused by the failure to exert the private right on the subject and to give effect by appropriate legislation to the regulations thus adopted. This must be unless it can be said that the right to so regulate as to save and protect the public interest did not apply to a case where the destruction of the public right was imminent as the result of a dispute between the parties and their consequent failure to establish by private agreement the standard of wages which was essential; in other words that the existence of the public right and the public power to preserve it was wholly under the control of the private right to establish a standard by agreement. Nor is it an answer to this view to suggest that the situation was one of emergency and that emergency cannot be made the source of power.. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2. The proposition begs the question, since although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed. If act which, if done, would interrupt, if not destroy, ........by anticipation legislatively prevented, by the same token the power to regulate may be exercised to guard against the cessation ........threatened by a failure of employers and employees to agree as to the standard of wages, such standard being an essential prerequisite to the uninterrupted flow......Again , what purpose would be subserved by all the regulations established to secure the enjoyment by the public of an efficient and reasonable service, if there was no power in government to prevent all service from being destroyed?
Further yet what benefits would flow to society by recognizing the right, because of the public interest, to regulate the relation of employer and employee and of the employees among themselves and to give to the latter peculiar and special rights safeguarding their persons, protecting them in case of accident and giving efficient remedies for that purpose, if there was no power to remedy a situation created by a dispute between employers and employees as to rate of wages, which if not remedied, would leave the public helpless, the whole people ruined and all the homes of the land submitted to a danger of the most serious character?
The court thus upheld the constitutionality of the Adamson Act, which provided for an eight-hour day and appropriate wage standards for interstate railway employees. The court declared that, although congress could not control or prevent collective agreement on wages on interstate railways or fail to enforce a v voluntary wage agreement, the failure of employees and employers to agree establishes a condition which congress may resolve by fixing wages or requiring arbitration, such authority being justified by congress's responsibility for maintaining the uninterrupted flow of commerce.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CIVIL CASES; EMINENT DOMAIN
Knox V. Lee, 12 Wall , 457, 20 L.ed 287 (1871)
the court held that neither the due process clause nor the provision for just compensation covered a claim for "consequential damages" resulting from the exercise of lawful power.
Block V. Hirsh 256 US 135, 41 S. ct 458, 65 L. ed 865 (1921)
....We do not perceive any reason for denying the justification held good ..........to a law limiting the property rights now in question if the public exigency requires that. The reasons are of a different nature but they certainly are not less pressing. Congress has stated the unquestionable embarrassment of government and danger to the public health in the existing condition of things. The ....is necessarily monopolized in comparatively few hands, and letting portions of it is as much a business as any other. Housing is a necessary of life. All the elements of a public interest justifying some degree of public control are present. The only matter that seems to us open to debate is whether the statute goes too far.
Wolff Packing Co. V. Court of Industrial Relations 262 Us 522, 43 S. ct 630, 67 L.ed 1103 (1923)
(3) Businesses which though not public at their inception may be fairly said to have arisen to be such and have become subject in consequence to some government regulation. They have come to hold such a peculiar relation to the public that this is superimposed upon them. In the language of the cases, the owner by devoting his business to the public use, in effect grants the public and interest in that use and subjects himself to public regulation to the extent of that interest although the property continues to belong to its private owner and to be entitled to protection accordingly......
In nearly all the businesses included under the third head above, the thing which gave the public interest was the indispensable nature of the service and the exorbitant charges and arbitrary control to which the public might be subjected without regulation........; but when the public becomes so peculiarly dependent upon a particular business that one engaging therein subjects himself to a more intimate public regulation is only to be determined by the process of exclusion and inclusion and to gradual establishment of a line of distinction.
Adkins V. Children's Hospital 261 US 525, 569, 43 S.ct. 394, 67 L. ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238
....The truth seems to me to be that, subject to compensation when compensation is due, the Legislature may forbid or restrict any business when it has a sufficient force of public opinion behind it.
Mugler V. Kansas 123 US 623, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205.
.... But if the people of the state of New York speaking by their authorized voice say that they want it, I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent their having their will.
Standard Oil V. United States 221 US 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911)
Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the court ordered the dissolution of the standard oil company of new jersey not because of its huge size but because it had used its economic power through pricing and other manipulative policies to restrain trade unreasonably (rule of reason).
Goldfarb V. Virginia State Bar (1975) 421 US 773, 95 S.ct 2004, 44 L. Ed 572.
The court held that minimum fees suggested by the Fairfax county bar association and in fact enforced by the state bar association constituted price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court reasoned that ..........The court rejected the bar association defense that the Sherman Antitrust Act was not intended by congress to apply to a learned profession because a lawyer, in conducting a title examination, renders a service in return for money and this is commerce.
Martin V. Hunter's Lessee 1 Wheat. 304, 4 L. Ed 97 (1816)
.....The supreme Court declared: (a) that the Constitution "was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by "the people of the United States".
New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254, 84 S.CT 710, 11 L. Ed 2nd 686.
The court held that libel laws cannot be used to "cast a pall of fear and timidity" on the press Alabama courts had awarded heavy damages to Birmingham law enforcement officers who had sued the new york times, for libeling them in a paid political advertisement which it published. The court reversed this decision, holding that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open"; that injury to an official's reputation "affords no warrant for suppressing speech that would otherwise be free" ; and that a public official may not recover damages for libel unless he can prove actual malice, that is that the statement was made "with knowledge that is was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Chambers V. Florida (1940) 309 US 227, 60 S. ct 472, 84 L. Ed. 716
The court held that due process of law was denied when the police obtained "sunrise confessions" from four Negroes after they had been questioned for five days in the absence of friends, advisers, or counsel and "under circumstances calculated to break the strongest nerves and the stoutest resistance."
Crandell V. Nevada (1867) 6 Wall 35, 18 L. Ed 745
Court declares........"a person's constitutional privilege, to come to the seat of his government ... and to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports...to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several states."
McCulloch V. Maryland 4 wheat. 316, 4 L. ED. 579 (1819)
Chief Justice Marshall: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."
Let it be re-entered, the establishment and protection of fundamental constitutional principles through Judicial Review, is an established and significant feature of the American Constitutional system. That a citizen has a Duty and a Right, to present to the Court significant breeches of these fundamental principles is, "A MOST BASIC, CIVIL POWER"!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RE: 94-2060
Reply to order filed march 18,1994
The constitution (state and National), as seen through the precedents already received by the court (pgs 10-31) DICTATE AND DECREE: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law, belongs specifically to the people, WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE!
The Authority undertaken IS NOT CONTRARY, to the Constitution (state or national) and thereby according to the precedents given, BELONGS to the people; McCulloch V. Maryland, pg 31. The court, whose authority is granted through the people, by this constitution is CONSTRAINED, to uphold: WE THE PEOPLE.........! Martin V. Hunter's lessee pg 29.
The claims arise,
I/WE, DEMAND TO BE EQUAL. (BILL OF RIGHTS)
I/WE DEMAND SOVEREIGNTY, over our lives (apart from criminal). (THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES)
I/WE DEMAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM THOSE ENTITIES WHICH HAVE SEIZED OUR FUTURE, ESTABLISHING personal DEBTS, medical or other, BEYOND OUR CONTROL OR DESIRE. The protection of personal property (debt control) is within the fifth amendment (U. S. Constitution), AS APPLIED TO: OUR POSTERITY, the children have a right to JUST COMPENSATION! (THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE)
I/WE DEMAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, to medical information, New York Times V. Sullivan pg 29, as NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL, and is held within the fourth amendment (U.S. Constitution) : The RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS.....!
I/WE DO CLAIM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and those listed previously, HAVE BEEN TAKEN, from us by the medical establishment. Standard Oil V. United States pg 28.
I/WE DO CLAIM these Constitutional rights were dismissed by the state of Illinois, particularly in view of Illinois code of civil procedure, section 2-622. United States V. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, Singleton and Memphis and Charleston R. Co. pg 16.
I/WE DO CLAIM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE/ARE UNPROTECTED, by the United States Government. Whitney V. California pg 17.
Evidence will show, "LACK OF LAW", LACK OF MITIGATION/ARBITRATION RIGHTS, LACK OF PERSONAL DEBT CONTROL (A TAKING, by others), and lack of personal INHERENT RIGHTS! De Jonge V. Oregon pg19.
The Constitution will show: It is a DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP, to correct these problems; the legal nature of these problems, brings them to OUR COURT, AND TO OUR PEOPLE! Meyer V. Nebraska pg 22.
WE DESERVE, to live within the Values and Rights, as the Constitution (the people of the U. S.) provides; OR WE LIVE IN ANARCHY. Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co. pg 16.
The primary Amendments to the United States Constitution wherein the people rest IS: ARTICLES 1,4,5,7,9,10,13,&14
The Right of the people, to a LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Crandell V. Nevada pg 30, RATHER THAN, a political discussion, is covered and allowed by Amendment 9 of the constitution, and section 2 of the Bill of Rights, AND IS COMPULSORY, DUE TO: Distinctly personal/public issues of property, Justice, and commerce. West Coast Hotel V. Parrish pg 13.
Let it be reiterated: The FIRST DUTY assumed by each Judge under his/her oath of office, IS to support the federal and state constitutions (the constitution alone, AS IT IS WRITTEN, IS the sole test). The court MUST of necessity, enforce the constitution. WUEBKER V. JAMES, Co Ct 1944, 58 NYS 2d 671. and STATE V. JUD FIRST NAT BANK, 1925, 202 N. W. 391 , 52 N.D. 231, OATH OF OFFICE, art 6, CL 3
The order march 18,1994 suggests the basis or foundation is lacking; YET the court plainly acknowledges the relationship and validity of 42 USC 1983 ( the public health and welfare). The Court reasoned, read, and UNDERSTOOD, making the charge, "ignorant as to the basis" of questionable integrity.
The foundation of the complaint is further identified and acknowledged by the Court in: "seeks vindication of the Constitutional Rights of the common public citizen". The words are TOO PLAIN, to produce doubt as to their meaning! From Noble State Bank V. Haskel pg 11. Canfield V. United States pg 11. Driscoll V. Edison Light and Power Co pg 11
The court having acknowledged a case involving constitutional rights, as well as, public health and welfare, German Alliance Insurance Co. V. Lewis pg 11; DISTINCTLY AND DELIBERATELY IGNORES, the plaintiffs request for legal counsel in its order, stating instead , "as he appears to have filed this action before conducting any legal research". Johnson V. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, Yet, the Court DOES UNDERSTAND, the plaintiff cannot afford to PURCHASE JUSTICE. Nor does the court make any case whatsoever against providing adequate counsel. Examination indicates the protection of constitutional rights to be PARAMOUNT to the courts RESPONSIBILITY, yet the court makes no mention within this order acknowledging its DUTY and its obligation. Rather the judge initiates the description of, " Court Jester", with his words, "must submit a separate memorandum of law, in support of his claims". This attempt is in poor taste, and IS NOT appreciated.
The memorandum of law IS acknowledged by the judge: "at its conclusion, the complaint demands....", which falls upon the ninth page, and the judges' own words, "having read the plaintiffs entire 31 page complaint". The tenth page being entitled "memorandum of law, RE 94-2060, DEMANDS a situation akin to PERJURY exists.
This memorandum pages 10-31, exists primarily of precedents taken from the Supreme Court of the United States, and is plainly so described; each of which align specifically with the public right to a LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, as the purpose of this lawsuit, American Federation of Labor V. Swing pg 20. AND IS IDENTIFIED, as such, by the words, "that a citizen/citizens, have a duty and a right, to present to the court significant breeches of these fundamental principles is, A MOST BASIC CIVIL POWER, page 31, and on page 1 "establish through definition, FAIR PRINCIPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAW," (an adaption from the Bill of Rights, section 3.) Thornhill V. Alabama pg 21.
The court purports to make an issue of : "the complaint is devoid of any facts", yet dismisses without cause, page 2 original pleading 2 A, An obvious usurpation of amendment 7, clearly stated. 2 B (1) the cases and the words ........NO LEGAL RECOURSE.(clearly supported through court transcript)....dismissed by lack of law, (the trial Judges words)..... or minor procedural infraction,(the appellate judges determination),..... and NOT for any other reason. Initiating the question; ARE THESE NOT SUFFICIENT, CLEARLY SUPPORTED, FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Pleading 2C DOES support the issue raised is COMMERCE. Pleading 2D DOES infer "LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST", because "public" information is Denied. It is the job of the court to determine, WHO has the controlling interest. Pleading 2E Establishes itself within the cases listed 2B. Pleading 2F Shall be established at trial and begins its associations with the case, Chambers V. Florida pg 30. Pleading 3 IS established, throughout the cases 92S1561 and 92C1222 AS, this much GREED, CANNOT justify tax-exempt status. Pleading 3A ESTABLISHES MONOPOLY in the making. Pleading 3B IS obvious and CONTRARY TO, "WE THE PEOPLE". PLEADING 3C ESTABLISHES government Failure to protect the citizen, even when the problem is recognized. DID this judge FAIL, making the statement; "the complaint contains [rambling paragraphs]." The issues HE RECOGNIZED; Regulation of the medical industry, freedom of the press, due process, equal protection of the laws, and involuntary servitude, among other legal issues. Consequent to this DID HE call for, or provide a writ of certiorari, that the facts might be investigated which PLAINLY DISTINGUISH........this plaintiffs standing to sue and bring suit, SUBSTANTIATING, "my/our Constitutional rights have been violated"; through the court, by the medical industry, and by the government whose authority to protect, and to provide legal recourse, for each citizen, has been held in BAD FAITH!
DOES THE JUDGE ALLEGE, these are frivolous pleadings, OR does he endeavor to sit upon, "a throne", asserting the common citizen CANNOT come here, a literal form of tyranny, DEVOID of Constitutional authority! DOES, the charge of DISCRIMINATION, stand? Against those too poor or without a legal education; IS their lives or needs, for PROPER Judicial intervention, "Frivolous"? Does the DEMAND (pleading) page 5, FAIL to CONVEY, "THE PUBLIC CITIZEN NEEDS THE COURT". The court states; "the memorandum should apply the facts to the law", BUT the court provides NO precedent or LAW! Jurisdiction is again re-instated, that the citizen/citizens DO OWN UNDENIABLE RIGHTS, TO THIS FORM, OF DUE PROCESS!
It is IMPOSSIBLE, to believe the public (common citizen), has been treated differently than I, (these things occur) producing the response "CLASS ACTION SUIT".
The plaintiff (WE), DEMAND the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, AS CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED; having paid the price for it, WE DEMAND IT! Twining V. New Jersey pg 23 (LAW OF THE LAND).
These are LEGAL questions; giving, requiring, Jurisdiction to be within the court. As the constitution declares Article 3, section 1: The judicial power of the U.S. shall be vested in the court........ Section 2. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this constitution..... Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. V. Grosjean pg 24
These are questions, SECURED, to the American system of government, BY THE RIGHT TO VOTE. These complaints submit, National security is described as: 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, ...........(FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN). And hereby re-submits, these complaints are supported by court documents, commonly known FACTS, and by the preparation of evidence, to be undertaken. Wilson V. New pg 24.
The court may select REASONABLE boundaries determining: IF NO MORE THAN_______________ citizens JOIN, in this case, once sufficient time and advertizement has occurred, the case shall be dismissed. TO JOIN SHALL BE TO VOTE! Block V. Hirsh pg 27.
The court suggests and demonstrates this case has already been decided by its "rejection of the facts and memorandum" and initiates the prejudicial response, "Frivolous pleadings".
This Plaintiff instructs the Court, DECLARE, the "frivolous" nature of the words: "These matters are literally about life, death, and property, and cannot be brushed aside, page 9, and the "Frivolous" nature suggested, within the constitutional rights herein, AS STATED! Mugler V. Kansas pg 28.
This plaintiff, EXPECTS FULL LEGAL RECOURSE, Adkins V. Childrens Hospital pg 28, or will be forced to initiate the words and actions necessary to establish, the Court MOCKS the first Amendment of the constitution: "the right of the people peacefully to petition the government, for a redress of grievances"! As well as, an absolute avoidance, of amendments 14,15,19, and 26, by this court.
It is sufficient to say: The amount of money represented, is LESS than 1 %, of the "medical business". The CALL, within this case, IS FOR JUSTICE! It is REPREHENSIBLE, BUT TRUE; The failure to include a monetary penalty, UNDIGNIFIED or NOT, precludes the Right to trial. The court says NO damages, NO case!
Wolff Packing Co. V. Court of Industrial Relations pg 27.
TO THE MEDIA
This case 94-2060, DESERVES AND NEEDS your support!
The court shall attempt to "WEASEL OUT", and it shall become your JOB, to assert and inform!
DO NOT USE, this material, or case 94-2001, until april 12. I WILL NOT file these latest papers with the court until april 5-6, and will in that week bring the cases as previously mentioned.
The court WILL CAPITULATE with your involvement, and allow trial, BUT the verdict shall be against.
That is IRRELEVANT, because the result is expected to be, "A MOST BASIC, CIVIL POWER" shall be ESTABLISHED!
DO YOU WANT THIS?
TO THE MEDIA
It is now possible to begin. The record in its entirety (case 94-2060) which precedes this federal case, is available to you, approx 250 pages, for the purchase price of fifty dollars.
This price guarantee's to you usage of said material "EXCEPT FOR, the medical description, that suggests I am mentally insufficient, a description I STRONGLY DISAGREE and oppose!" Descriptions are included as to the facts, relevant to me, these things are PERSONAL PROPERTY and I DO NOT release them.
The price is included as a guarantee to ME, that these matters shall be left alone.
When cases 94-2001 and 94-2060 go to trial these issues will no doubt be raised. There is NO OTHER DEFENSE. I will deal with these things, at that time, according to my own ways.
Some will suppose I will gain, RATHER my only gain is to go to public trial where the best of their profession will attempt to dishonor me.
STAY AWAY, from the personal aspects of the trial, to me.
TO THE MEDIA
My involvement is mandatory, BUT NOT DESIRED. These cases were dropped on "My doorstep", and cannot be avoided.
I, PREFER, a quiet and simple lifestyle, and REFUSE all interviews, apart from what I, believe, to be NECESSARY for the purposes of producing reasonable JUSTICE and CIVIL AUTHORITY, through these cases.
These cases ARE about CITIZENSHIP, and its RIGHTS and its DUTIES, and you will please adhere. These cases are NOT PERSONAL, and I am NOT fodder for the purposes of the press.
TO THE MEDIA
REGARDING FEDERAL CASES 94-2001 & 94-2060
These cases, EACH, carry significant consequences and benefits. 94-2001 has been carried to its, "turning point". It IS NOW YOUR TURN, to either reject or establish this case. ^have received an order filed Mar 25,1994, which states, "the court remains completely at a loss as to what the factual basis for this lawsuit is, or what federal cause of action , the plaintiff might have".
The next stage is again: "A 1st Amendment RIGHT, to petition the government for a LEGAL redress of grievances".
The court states; "because the plaintiff is unable to articulate a colorable claim for relief in federal court, the complaint will be dismissed."
With regard to an appeal, it will be very easy to establish this judge was included within the complaint "DE NOVO" trial pleading 16, and suggests discipline or dismissal of the judge. It IS illegal for the judge to hear, "his own case"! Making an appeal very SIMPLE.
This order finishes with: "case dismissed, without prejudice."
It is further stated: for the purposes of, the press, the words "treason, betrayal of a trust", and "grand theft, of personal/public rights", occur within the pleadings.
Be it hereby acknowledged, these words were used for the purposes of discussion; with intent to examine judicial responsibility, under the "judges.....shall hold their offices during good behavior". Article 3, section 1 of the constitution.
It is IMPORTANT, to recognize the words, "treason, and theft" ARE within the "freedom of speech", BUT could be used IMPROPERLY! They are for the purposes of discussion only.
DO NOT affiliate these words with ANY JUDGE, as that would necessitate A VERY UNDESIRABLE legal battle.
MY words are "merely the rantings" of a pro se litigant, who thinks the right to a free attorney is legitimate! Nothing more.
The consequence of proceeding with this action is to throw the Judicial system into disrepute. The media SHOULD ADHERE STRICTLY TO : A discussion limited to the definable realities of public justice in America, as identified.
The Benefits: A VERY NECESSARY, "cleaning, through the Civil Authority, for Equality and Fair Play!"
Let it be noted: Crime is MORE a description of abuse and separation from Society, than a state of anarchy. Abuse causing crime is UNEQUAL consideration or advantage. Separation causing crime is: "society DOESN'T WANT ME".
The current system of VOTING for a judge is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. The vast majority of citizens have NO possibility of knowing who is "good or bad". A court which DOES function properly is, a court in open public view, TV or radio.
Case 94-2060 Establishes open PUBLIC DISCUSSION on the problems of "medical business", and does focus on debt resolution, through public trial. Further benefit includes a 'NEW", open door policy to establish civil power by direct INTERVENTION, through public trial, into every area the citizenry feels necessary. The "common citizen" will regain the VETO power, and significant influence over rewriting or defining new legislation. THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT Democracy, WE THE PEOPLE, changes.
The consequence of establishing and addressing the issues involved WILL BE: The stock, bond, and foreign investors (markets) will be VERY NERVOUS. This WILL subside within a few months, once public control is described as a "good thing".
SOME ADVICE
IT IS CONTRARY, TO REASONABLE DEMOCRATIC ACTION, to investigate the Elected President, IN OFFICE, for matters (less than, MURDER) which occurred, prior to taking that office. The people DESERVE the full faculties of the President. The people DESERVE, full knowledge of EVERYTHING done during his/her official term in office. The people NEED a united Country, NOT a divided one.
Legal matters, MUST BE, answered BUT NOT during the official 4 year term, UNLESS the legalities are presidential Improprieties, or occur during the official term. THESE ARE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS.
Let the people, have their President.
1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION
THE GOVERNMENT
FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
The argument arises: WHO, HAS THE RIGHT to ask/why and where?
The first Amendment is quite clear: Congress shall make NO LAW.......prohibiting....or abridging the freedom of ......or the Right of......a redress of grievances.
The first Amendment is again quite clear: In whose freedom....."the people".....and who/what is restricted/required....."the government".
The third Article of the Constitution, is quite clear about legal issues/responsibilities: "section 1, The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts....established". and section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and the laws of the United States..."
This petition draws from the initiating cases 94-2001 & 94-2060 to establish: THESE LEGAL GRIEVANCES!
let the facts be submitted:
The court IS NOT IMMUNE, it is established to PRODUCE, adequate or better behavior within Society, it is NOT separate, or entitled to exclusive privileges, BUT an example of a higher ideal! The court fails in these cases.
The court IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, IF it cannot understand, complaints as arise from, "the common public citizen", in simple language! The court fails in these cases.
The court IS NOT in compliance with Constitutional doctrine as defined by: WE THE PEOPLE......"IF the people cannot establish their authority by a legal redress of grievances"........IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION....."IF the fundamental values supplied by the Bill of Rights, FAIL to instruct"........ESTABLISH JUSTICE......."IF the formality of court proceedings demonstrates, a complete disregard for the outcome or allows EASY ABUSE of the citizenry"....INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY........"IF the court fails to uphold JUSTICE (the intent of the Law, as directed through the Bill of Rights)..........PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE........"IF the people are forced to PURCHASE justice"...........PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.........."IF the Law can become entangled (millions of words are TOO MANY)......AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY,........."IF liberty FAILS the people, allowing one group supremacy over the majority, allows pillaging of resources, allows the betrayal of the public trust in its most basic social foundation, allows inherent and inalienable rights to be possessions stolen."
Are these the things ordained and established by the American Constitution? WHOSE COUNTRY IS THIS?
The civil Authority CANNOT be demonstrated upon a single complaint. The public issues arise in connection with VALID, REASONABLE, social disputes. The authority called civil power BEGINS:
When the people join.
when the people discuss relevant expectations.
when the people Watch/Listen and react.
when the people define their decision.
when the people explain how far the boundary extends.
when the people specify, the penalty.
AND IS COMPLETE
when the people enforce their decision through law; CLEARLY visible and understandable to the majority.
Throughout the legal cases represented by Federal case 94-2001 & 94-2060 EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT, to communicate the Realities involved, has been made; yet the Court says, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND"!
RE: 94-2001
This case begins in the lower courts strictly in the language of the common citizen, A SIMPLE CASE. As requested by the Court it was "redressed" in a legal format, BASED UPON: A civil Rights action!
Evidence and personal testimony was given, and established through the Record, which was filed with the pleadings, and the memorandum in support. (cause of grievance), and further identified by (the common citizens outcry for Justice), a simple explanation included in the writ of right, Jan 28,1994.
The evidence was submitted within a CLEAR and CONCISE investigative procedure, whereupon the extent of abuse, and thereby damage could be easily ascertained; again as implied and supported by the record, received jan 6,1994 (applied to the test)!
The plaintiff illustrates his Right through Constitutional doctrine (authority)
YET THE COURT SAYS; "the plaintiffs response does not satisfy the courts requirements, specifically Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a). Rule 8 (a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgement for the relief the pleader seeks. Feb 08,1994.
The plaintiff replies Feb 18,1994, with a Constitutional Basis, per pleading, Being SHORT, and PLAIN, and SPECIFIC.
The Court replies: "Frivolous"
RE: 94-2001
This case explained in yet another way reads:
We the people, DO have an established RIGHT, to Fair and "EQUITABLE" solutions, in law. The Reality, and evidence CLEARLY indicate JUSTICE IS DENIED. This case is then,
A PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Authority of the Court is thereby questioned, BY the Authority of the People, as a majority!
THE PLEADINGS AGAIN RESTATED:
1. No one can be convicted of a crime he/she was NOT charged with.
2. No one can be both prosecutor and judge.
3. A judge is NOT IMMUNE during bad behavior in a courtroom.
4. Every citizen deserves access to court , "within their own words".
5. The Authority MUST substantiate, OR it is TYRANNY.
6. Constitutional Questions ARE a function of the Courts responsibility.
7. The court MUST comply with BASIC fundamental procedure.
8. The people deserve protection from corrupt officials.
9. The people have a right to expect the lower court to RESPECT the higher court authority.
10. The people have a right to uniform judgements, the same penalty, being as reasonable and just, per situation, as the law allows, NOT TYRANNY, which is "making an example of someone"!
11. The people have a right to understand the courts directive, without compromise.
12. The Court acts illegally, IF orders are given directing compliance to one set of rules, then dismissing by yet another.
13. Procedural formalities are BIASED against the poor, (cannot be understood by), and therefore Illegal.
14. The simple defense, "tell it like it was", MUST be sufficient.
15. The court acts illegally, in view of:
a. DO judges protect each other?
the job IS to protect the law.
b. DOES the court oppose the liberty established in the words, "IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"!
c. The people have a right to understanding.
d. Judicial immunity is NOT Constitutionally Based.
16. Procedural denial of the public right to, "ACCESS, to the Courts", is Illegal.
17. The people demand, "the foundation of Justice is EQUALITY", in every instance.
18. The people are ready to elect their president, THEMSELVES, one person, one vote.
Be it NOTED and understood: Judge Harold A. Baker, did cause pleading 16, of this case, to be initiated, filing jan 28,1994, and as such may have been influenced by the subsequent filing Feb 18,1994 and its demand...."discipline or dismiss".
The wording of issues as represented by case 94-2001 are harsher than perhaps necessary. The Reality of "so called justice" is EQUALLY HARSH and MORE SO upon the people it falls upon.
The purpose and demand of this case shall hereby be limited to: FAIR, EQUITABLE, CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. and
The proper authority and RESPECT as is deserved by the people, limited by the constitution, and established by their VOTE.
RE: 94-2060
This Case comes to court by reason of the MONOPOLY that clearly exists in medicine, and the reality that government enforces and allows this monopoly to stand.
THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS!
Further laws which might produce a Fair or Equal footing, between the public and the medical profession, DO NOT EXIST!
Evidence exists that the "Business of Medicine" can control Basic Liberties, forcing compliance without reasonable legal contest over cost.
The public is openly VULNERABLE, yet the medical establishment is CLOSED, access denied!
The individual is open to evaluation and therefrom terminology which cannot adequately describe ANY PERSON. Medicine dictates and allows NO retaliation.
The Realities involved in medical trauma transcend and eliminate ALL possibilities of free enterprise.
The taxpayer provides ANYTHING medicine asks, while medicine controls ALL aspects of patient care.
The TAXPAYER HAS LONG BEEN ABUSED!
The taxpayer/patient must fight alone against unfair pricing policies.
ALL these things the court finds, "INCOMPREHENSIBLE", even as seen within the plain and simple words pg 4, reply to order mar 18,1994. "each of which align specifically with the public right to a legal redress of grievances, as the purpose of this lawsuit".
The court represented by Judge Harold A. Baker. finds the constitutional framework of a legal redress of grievances, as defined by the first amendment to be, "frivolous".
The court also rejects known "medical business", realities of trauma, billing, etc, as irrational OR unsupported: Directly in violation of my right to DUE PROCESS. Judgement IS illegal outside of the courtroom. This supposition is supported from court documents, this case and case 94-2001.
Let it be known JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY, through and HONEST evaluation of fundamental realities is the purpose and the demand. Constitutional Authority DOES belong to the people.
UNITED STATES APPELLATE COURT
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
RE: 94-2001 & 94-2060
Jurisdiction IS; as a public citizen to his/her government. The Court being, "very nearly the final interpreter of the Constitution, and the reality that these are legal questions, places the Quality, and Freedom, and 1st amendment RIGHTS, of the U.S. Citizenry, PLAINLY, within the Duty and Responsibility of the Federal Court of the United States of America.
Each case is hinged upon the legal requirements, provided to the citizen, which constitutionally adhere the government, to specific Responsibility.
These cases represent SIMPLE AND PLAIN, rights and obligations; there are NO "gray area's".
The COURT Substantiates, the 1st amendment rights of the citizen and adheres to its Responsibility, according to the CONSTITUTION, OR Rejects its Oath and Honor!
RE: 94-2001
This case begins in the lower courts strictly in the language of the common citizen, A SIMPLE CASE. As requested by the Court it was "redressed" in a legal format, BASED UPON: A civil Rights action!
Evidence and personal testimony was given, and established through the Record, which was filed with the pleadings, and the memorandum in support. (cause of grievance), and further identified by (the common citizens outcry for Justice), a simple explanation included in the writ of right, Jan 28,1994.
The evidence was submitted within a CLEAR and CONCISE investigative procedure, whereupon the extent of abuse, and thereby damage could be easily ascertained; again as implied and supported by the record, received jan 6,1994 (applied to the test)!
The plaintiff illustrates his Right through Constitutional doctrine (authority)
YET THE COURT SAYS; "the plaintiffs response does not satisfy the courts requirements, specifically Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a). Rule 8 (a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgement for the relief the pleader seeks. Feb 08,1994.
The plaintiff replies Feb 18,1994, with a Constitutional Basis, per pleading, Being SHORT, and PLAIN, and SPECIFIC.
The Court replies: "Frivolous"
RE: 94-2001
This case explained in yet another way reads:
We the people, DO have an established RIGHT, to Fair and "EQUITABLE" solutions, in law. The Reality, and evidence CLEARLY indicate JUSTICE IS DENIED. This case is then,
A PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Authority of the Court is thereby questioned, BY the Authority of the People, as a majority!
THE PLEADINGS AGAIN RESTATED:
1. No one can be convicted of a crime he/she was NOT charged with.
2. No one can be both prosecutor and judge.
3. A judge is NOT IMMUNE during bad behavior in a courtroom.
4. Every citizen deserves access to court , "within their own words".
5. The Authority MUST substantiate, OR it is TYRANNY.
6. Constitutional Questions ARE a function of the Courts responsibility.
7. The court MUST comply with BASIC fundamental procedure.
8. The people deserve protection from corrupt officials.
9. The people have a right to expect the lower court to RESPECT the higher court authority.
10. The people have a right to uniform judgements, the same penalty, being as reasonable and just, per situation, as the law allows, NOT TYRANNY, which is "making an example of someone"!
11. The people have a right to understand the courts directive, without compromise.
12. The Court acts illegally, IF orders are given directing compliance to one set of rules, then dismissing by yet another.
13. Procedural formalities are BIASED against the poor, (cannot be understood by), and therefore Illegal.
14. The simple defense, "tell it like it was", MUST be sufficient.
15. The court acts illegally, in view of:
a. DO judges protect each other?
the job IS to protect the law.
b. DOES the court oppose the liberty established in the words, "IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"!
c. The people have a right to understanding.
d. Judicial immunity is NOT Constitutionally Based.
16. Procedural denial of the public right to, "ACCESS, to the Courts", is Illegal.
17. The people demand, "the foundation of Justice is EQUALITY", in every instance.
18. The people are ready to elect their president, THEMSELVES, one person, one vote.
Be it NOTED and understood: Judge Harold A. Baker, did cause pleading 16, of this case, to be initiated, filing jan 28,1994, and as such may have been influenced by the subsequent filing Feb 18,1994 and its demand...."discipline or dismiss".
The wording of issues as represented by case 94-2001 are harsher than perhaps necessary. The Reality of "so called justice" is EQUALLY HARSH and MORE SO upon the people it falls upon.
The purpose and demand of this case shall hereby be limited to: FAIR, EQUITABLE, CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. and
The proper authority and RESPECT as is deserved by the people, limited by the constitution, and established by their VOTE.
ITEM #65
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CASE #94-2001
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
V.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
RE: 2:94-CV-02001
THE COMMON CITIZENS OUTCRY FOR JUSTICE
REGARDING ORDER FILED JAN 11, 1994
The assertion that this is a "review of a small claims court decision is inaccurate". This federal action RESTS upon the simple claim: I CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF A CHARGE THE PLAINTIFF NEVER MADE! This reality: LEADS TO THE CLEAR ASSUMPTION THE JUDGE, STEPPED ASIDE, FROM HIS BENCH AND BECAME THE PLAINTIFF/PROSECUTOR AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. as this is NOT within the limits of judicial action. The issue of a personal attack of Slander exists.
A simple demand for the appellate court to fix this complaint fell upon DEAF EARS, even when, clear wording indicating further improper actions existed, was used
The court further let stand without answer the DEMAND: SHOW YOUR STATUTE, THAT ALLOWS A SUPREME COURT RULE of procedure, EXCEEDS a citizens right to JUSTICE and to be heard as a man, NOT a lawyer! This too fell upon deaf ears.
The court insisted upon precedent and yet refused to acknowledge the industrial standard given.
The court KNOWS: DUE PROCESS IS, a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual----called, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS!
The decision 92-s-2991 is BASED upon a mechanics testimony 20 months after rebuild, UNFAIR!
The decision gen #4-93-0441 RESTS entirely upon : NOT JUSTICE OR LAW but upon failure to comply with exacting standards NOTED as rules 342-343. When these rules were complied with the appellate judges then state: "well it doesn't quite comply with rule 341 & 344".
This is TYRANNY, rules 341 & 344 were NEVER MENTIONED in the preceding (only) order of the court, and like 92-s-2991. The decision is based upon a ruling which I was NEVER CHARGED WITH, NOR allowed to comply with.
The DECISION of the state supreme court #76128 could NOT be more arbitrary as it is the single word "denied" and has NO BASIS AT ALL.
The court knows: THE LAW IS BASED UPON STATUTE, where is it?
DUE PROCESS confined by the fourteenth amendment DOES NOT ALLOW; convictions where no charge was made. DOES NOT ALLOW JUDGEMENTS WITHOUT LAW. DOES NOT ALLOW, constitutional rights to be destroyed by procedural rule. DOES ALLOW the validity of public debt incurred, and the obligation of said debt/to be met. Injury, as a personal assault, has occurred. The liability of personal injury is a debt. that injury occurred in a public courtroom at the hand of a public official, and is SUBSTANTIAL,.
The assertion that: "to democratic change" were denied in the state proceedings, is completely misread. RATHER, THE DEMAND IS FOR A LEGAL DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED; and for $1,000,000.00 from the state of illinois to be used aby public citizens of the state of Ill for "corruption of the court issues". And for: "ERASE FRAUD, FROM MY NAME"!
The right to demand is held within those issues above and: the further demonstrated, "PROBLEMS OF THE COURT" examined within those "four volumes".
The fourteenth amendment, and the constitution, and the Bill of Rights ARE SUFFICIENT, memorandum of law! As the fourteenth amendment was denied to me, and more.
The appellate court NOR the state supreme court dealt with this issue NOR did they substantiate or submit any LAW or STATEMENT that this, WAS NOT SO! Therefore due process NOT ONLY DID NOT OCCUR BUT WAS, Quashed by the court itself.
The court suggests "filed within thirty". IS INAPPROPRIATE AS THIS CASE: IS ABOUT THE COURT ITSELF, THE JUDGES ARE THE DEFENDANTS, NOT for there judicial actions (which implies within the law) BUT for their LACK of judicial action and for a personal attack! These issues are NOT covered by the immunity clause for they are NOT JUDICIAL ACTS, these are acts of corruption and thereby subject to LAW. Canons are given as well as oaths of office in the "four volumes"!
This Federal court order pg 3 further declares injury upon this plaintiff by noting the Eleventh Amendment and rule 2.12, "pretrial procedures in prisoner cases." As I was never a prisoner, as the court documents "four volumes" clearly indicate; and IF the documents were read, would indicate an attempt to prejudice the plaintiff with thoughts of jail, while he merely attempts JUSTICE!
JUSTICE IS NOT a frivolous pleading, and immunity is NOT an absolute! And, the legal determination of a constitutional question IS the courts DUTY!
It is in the "Virginia" Bill of Rights adopted june 12, 1776 by the general congress of the United States of America AS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF THE NATION TO BE. That defines Best, the purpose and procedure of a JUDGE: section 2. That all power is vested in and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
The assertion by the court, that the eleventh amendment has authority OR that the plaintiff may not sue the state of Ill for damages inflicted by its public employees is challenged.
The constitution of the state of Ill and the United States both agree certain rights are inherent and inalienable SUCH AS DUE PROCESS. The IL second amendment and the right to remedy and justice IL 12th Amendment.
Again the pleading remains HOW CAN I BE CONVICTED BUT WAS NEVER CHARGED, DO I NOT have the right to know ALL charges prior to commencement of court proceedings? And DOES the judge have the right to accuse IF the plaintiff DID NOT, and DO I NOT have the right to remedy to DEMAND JUSTICE rather than arbitrary procedural rule. AND DO I NOT have the right to DEMAND FULL DISCLOSURE OF LAW when so denied AND HAVE THAT LAW substantiated by the court.
The court suggests its power is immune, the constitution SAYS ARTICLE III "the judges both of the supreme and inferior court, shall hold their office during good behavior....", and in article III section 2.1. "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws..... 2. IN ALL CASES affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY.....".
Further established within section 17 IL constitution, Discrimination exists regarding the property of case 92-s-2991 HAVING NOT BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED WITH FRAUD, 92-s-2991 was a warranty case and the industrial standard was DENIED, which is a true discrimination against, myself the defendant, NO warranty given, yet I am required to exceed the industrial standard.
The IL constitution section 23. Fundamental principles REQUIRES THE CITIZEN TO BE RESPONSIBLE and IS OBLIGATED to recognize and enumerate the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of civil government to their REPRESENTATIVES.
The court suggests: "entitled to absolute immunity" that fundamental principles enumerated by the individual ARE USELESS, that the Judge DOES ANYTHING, and is innocent, REGARDLESS of conduct or decisions outside the LAW AND JUSTICE. Bringing the question: IS THE JUDGE GREATER THAN LAW OR JUSTICE?
The test: Is this what the Constitution says? OR has the court corrupted itself.
The question therefore exists: IS A JUDGE ALONE CAPABLE OF INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE OR DOES the language of the LAW which CLEARLY contradicts a judges opinion take precedent over a judge.
The test: IS LAW OR THE JUDGE GREATER?
The constitution of IL and the U.S. both agree the true test is NOT a question of law or judge, BUT a question of establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for all!
Examined as Constitutional Decree: JUSTICE, TRANQUILLITY AND SECURITY: ARE THE PURPOSE of law and judge, ANYTHING LESS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is NO clause of immunity within the constitution, a corruption. I DO think it can be said Chief Justice Marshall AGREED in McCulloch V. Maryland 1819 "Let the end be legitimate, Let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. THE RIGHT OF TRIAL IS MINE!
AN INQUIRY
Is hereby demanded, to be held, to determine is BIAS exists within the federal court order filed Jan 11, 1994 returning to pg 3 Eleventh amendment &....C.D.I.L. rule 2.12 "pretrial procedures in prisoner cases."
The question remains and MUST BE examined to determine: did the judge issue without reading? Irregardless of the plaintiff lack of proper procedure this order is filled with pre-judgements involved in this case. IF unread how can those pre-judgements exist. IF read, does C.D.I.L. rule 2.12 constitute a threat, and if so HOW CAN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARING OCCUR?
Judgements based upon less than a complete understanding ARE NOT judgements; they are dismissals based upon arrogance and prejudice!
ITEM #66
FILED FEB 18, 1994
RE: 94-2001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
A CLASS ACTION SUIT
PLAINTIFF: " THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN"
being represented by; JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
V.
DEFENDANT: STATE OF ILLINOIS
being represented by; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
for the state ROLAND BURRIS, or as appointed
RE: 94-2001
Pursuant to order, filed feb 08, 1994
REPLIED: The Plaintiff submits, this federal action judiciously SEEKS CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED, RIGHTS FOR THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN, as decreed.
The only personal conflict involved is set aside within, "the inquiry", as stated, and is NOT a part of the pleadings.
Be it noted the plaintiff submits, "so-called", as used LACKS RESPECT, and is in direct contention with the words: "the plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting his case; additionally, the court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in the handling of their lawsuits, pg 4, (this order).
An examination of the writ of RIGHT reveals the facts as:
PLEADINGS AS DESCRIBED;
1. DUE PROCESS DENIED, Failure to provide constitutional right.
DEMAND: Sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, Failure to be impartial.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
3. LIBEL, as applied to constitutional jurisprudence, a parody of justice.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
4. DUE PROCESS, Failure to provide EQUAL protection under the law.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
5. CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, Failure to uphold, Oath of office, lack or respect, a question.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
6. a CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL QUESTION, Democratic freedom, right to initiate and expect an appropriate response.
DEMAND; Answer the question, sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCE, an illegal usage of power.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
8. MOCK JUSTICE, Failure to provide for the common defense.
DEMAND; FIX IT, sustain our Rights.
9. A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION, Failure to provide protection through the court system.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
10. CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS, Failure to rely on fundamental principles.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
11. JUDICIAL INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS, Failure to rely on fundamental principles.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights discipline or dismiss.
12. JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY, a corruption of fundamental principles.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
13. CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION DENIED, Failure to provide EQUAL protection under the law.
DEMAND; Establish JUSTICE, sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
14. CONSTITUTIONAL FUNDAMENTAL OF JUSTICE, Failure to establish justice.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, establish justice, discipline or dismiss.
15. CHARGES OF CORRUPTION, as described; An establishment of "WE THE PEOPLE.....are in charge".
DEMAND; Constitutional privilege and Right, acknowledge and FIX IT CORRECTLY.
16. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JUSTICE, Failure to rely on fundamental principles.
DEMAND; sustain our Rights, discipline or dismiss.
17. CONSTITUTIONAL UNIFORMITY, Failure to provide EQUAL PROTECTION under the LAW.
DEMAND; establish JUSTICE THROUGH EQUALITY, a constitutional decree.
18. DEMOCRATIC CHANGE (a legal demand), provide according to "changing times", when CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED, INITIATE through public affirmation.
DEMAND; a Constitutional Right as seen within the words/concept, "the court resembles a constitutional convention in continuous session".
The definition of "writ of RIGHT" reads: 1. a common law writ for restoring to its owner property, held by another. 2. a writ granted as a matter of right.
Each and every pleading as stated, fall under the single charge of CONSTITUTIONAL PIRACY!
giving rise the demand: "Return to us, the public citizen, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, AND dismiss or discipline those who have failed, and allow for $1,000,000.00 dollars for use within/from the state of illinois, as an, corruption of the court, clean up the mess expenditure.
THE DEFENDANT IS: STATE OF ILLINOIS (COURT SYSTEM)
subpoena issued to, ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE
for the state, ROLAND BURRIS, or as appointed.
This is to be: A CLASS ACTION SUIT, and the time and legal assistance necessary from the court is expected and DEMANDED.
I, James F. Osterbur, shall appear for/with the public, who join in the many like cases involving, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, JUDICIAL TYRANNY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DENIED, as are expected to join.
ITEM #67
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES F. OSTERBUR,
Plaintiff,
vs .
STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Defendant.
) FILED MAR 25, 1994
) No. 94-2001
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has brought this federal action, apparently seeking review of a small claims court decision. In his original complaint, the plaintiff claimed that his rights to due process and "to democratic change" had been denied in the state court proceedings. The plaintiff asserted that jurisdiction exists in this court under the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), and because he had raised a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
By Order of January 11, 1994, the court rejected the complaint, finding no basis for jurisdiction. In its order, the court noted that the plaintiff could not remove a closed case, and that this court has no authority to review the small claims and circuit court proceedings. Nevertheless, the court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of his claims.
The plaintiff's "writ of right," submitted in response to
the court's order, likewise was rejected, as the court still could not determine either the legal or factual basis for this
lawsuit after reading the plaintiff's rambling documents. However, the court granted the plaintiff one, final opportunity to submit a "basic, coherent complaint." The court cautioned the plaintiff to set forth only the relevant facts underlying this lawsuit and not to make legal arguments. See Order of February 8, 1994.
In response, the plaintiff has submitted a class action complaint on behalf of "the common public citizen." The complaint consists of a series of legal citations and invectives against judicial corruption, "mock justice," and "constitutional piracy." The complaint contains no facts whatsoever in support of the plaintiff's claims. Although the plaintiff has submitted three statements of his claims, the court remains completely at a loss as to what the factual basis for this lawsuit is, or what federal cause of action the plaintiff might have.
It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), reh'g denied, 405 U.S. 945 (1972). "[A] district court judge should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if an action is frivolous or-malicious." Wartman v. Branch 7, Civil Division, County Court, Milwaukee County, State of Wisconsin, 510 F.2d 130, 134 (7th Cir. 1975), PrinciPle reaffirmed in Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 455, 458 (7th Cir. 1987).
A frivolous complaint is one in which "the petitioner can make no rational argument in law or facts to support his or her claim for relief." Williams v. Faulkner, 837 F.2d 304, 306 (7th
Cir. 1988), aff'd sub nom Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). Because the plaintiff is unable to articulate a colorable claim for relief in federal court, the complaint will be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case is dismissed, without prejudice.
Enter this 25TH day of March 1994 HAROLD A. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ITEM #69
NO. 94-1943
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, ) On Appeal from the United
) States District Court for the
) Central District of
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Illinois, Danville
) Division.
vs. ) No. 94-C-2001
STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al., ) The Honorable
HAROLD A. BAKER,
Defendants . ) Judge Presiding .
MOTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ORDER OF NON-INVOLVEMENT
DUE TO LACK OF SERVICE IN THE TRIAL COURT
NOW COME the Defendants, all STATE DEFENDANTS , by and through their attorney, ROLAND W. BURRIS, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and hereby move this Court for an order of non-involvement by these defendants in this appeal. They have not been served with summons and, therefore, are not involved in this case. Since these persons, named as defendants, are not parties to this appeal, the undersigned respectfully requests that Roland W. Burris, the Attorney General of Illinois, and all Assistant Attorneys General be deleted as counsel.
ITEM #70
{this text is recopied from handwritten and should be considered as close as is reasonably possible}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL COURT
OSTERBUR, JAMES
V.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
RE: 94-2001
A WRIT OF RIGHT
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY
Cause of action: FAILURE of the government of the, STATE OF ILLINOIS to provide, "THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF JUSTICE THROUGH THE ILLINOIS COURTS SYSTEM, that system being the circuit court, appellate court court, and the state supreme court." "THEREFORE CHANGE IS NECESSARY"!
A review of case: Cole V. Osterbur champaign county #92-S-2991, general #4-93-0441, and supreme #76128
SHALL PROVE: CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES TO; establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, WERE ABANDONED.
SHALL PROVE: JUSTICE was forsaken, replaced with procedure, and that procedure DID NOT INTEND NOR ALLOW compliance to be made.
SHALL PROVE: The Judiciary FAILED to rely upon legislative law or FAILED the greater test of Constitutional law.
SHALL PROVE: THE JUDICIARY is biased against those poor, OR against those who lack formal legal education.
SHALL PROVE: The Judicial Inquiry of a public citizen is mocked by the court.
SHALL PROVE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE have been abandoned, in favor of foreign languages, which the people do not understand, NOR did they assent to!
SHALL PROVE: There is cause, therefore fundamental change is constitutionally called for, as provided by: "we the people....in order to form a more perfect union....."
THE DEMAND: IS for change, is for justice, is for due process, is for $1,000,000.00 to be used by/from the state of Illinois, FOR private citizen issues involving corruption of the court, OVER and above current funding programs, AND for a legal determination of the constitutional issues derived from: "the opportunity for the PUBLIC to directly control, IS READY!"
I, James F. Osterbur, DO proceed in the matters of court case circuit #92s2991, appellate gen #4-93-0441, and supreme #76128. Requesting Jury trial in Federal court and shall present evidence as follows:
Examination of the small claims complaint: ....for a 82 buick skylark car....
The judges' decision: for the taped record....notices the definition of fraud
This case 92s2991 was about a car and monetary reimbersement, judgement is made by the judge against the defendant, as a personal attack. This case is strictly limited to a vehicle and as such IS an extended warranty case; and was defended as such. At issue:.......having new motor, almost new transmission.
Examination of the case: page 6 lines 3 & 4 Question: when did you purchase......Answer. page 6 lines 5-10 It was in march of 1991. Question: last year was 92, maam. Warranty evaluation is over 18+ months of personal ownership by the plaintiff of said vehicle.
Judgement is based: page 76 lines 2-6....statements of a qualified mechanic.....!
At issue: mechanics testimony pg 51 lines 3-8 examined on NOVEMBER 10, 1992 representing a time lapse of 20 months (roughly) and several thousand miles and maintenance at the plaintiffs discretion.
Point of fact: the motor was NOT examined by any method which could be construed as adequate, to determine the original condition of the motor, at its sale date. Even so NO physical evidence, of any kind, was presented.
Point of fact: the plaintiff testified that the motor was newly rebuilt pg 17 lines 16-22 ....NO ridge at the top...... Answer. that's correct. By her mechanics own standard pg 52 line 10-16 ......condition of the cylinder walls.....ring wear......
Point of fact: ANY MOTOR can be destroyed within a few minutes (seconds) by a wide variety of reasons.
Examination of the case reveals: plaintiff DID damage the engine herself pg 13 line 24, pg line 10-12, pg 16 lines 1-4 and pg 16 lines 20-22. Defendant testifies pg 68 lines 8-13
At issue: Plaintiff states pg 16 line 13-19 .....hose....! Defendant testifies pg 68 lines 14-22 she told me...hose had a knife slit...half inch long.
Point of fact: Radiator hose was new at rebuild; ad reads, etc(new hoses, belts, wires, and more). A manufacturers defect or tampering IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY! page 65 lines 6-23.
Examination of the case: Defendant testifies as to threats pg 21 line 17 .....he had a gun...was present (judge quashes)
At issue: was sufficient warranty coverage offered by defendant, pg 63 lines 17-24
I DID NOT GUARANTEE IT.
Pg 67 lines 1-10 .....I gave her..... pg 9 line 24....he gave me $300.00...... AND 2 weeks later pg 9 line 4-17....(defendent fixes vehicle).
Point of fact: Damage inflicted by the plaintiff (running the car without coolant) described herein VOIDS ALL GM NEW CAR WARRANTEES!
At issue: must I, the defendant, provide greater coverage than the industrial standard?
Examination of the case: pg 45 line 22-24 .....why did it take 18 months....pg 46 lines 1-7 The Court.....(NOT PERTINENT).
Substantive review: This is an extended warranty case, an evaluation of why an extension of time is warranted is necessary in such a case!
The court indicates BIAS AND PRE-JUDGEMENT, by demanding (time constraints are common in ALL WARRANTY issues) are irrelevant.
The ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION, the judge has already determined guilt and pronounced judgement as fraud, PRIOR to the defendants testimony or his witness' testimony. That determination is based entirely on hearsay by the judges own words pg 36 line 1-9 .....right to do....some of the rules.....its only fair!
Further evidence: of heresay used against the defendent pg 75 lines 23-24......the witnesses who aren't here....and pg 62 lines 7-19.
At issue: Slander pg 75 lines 19-22 even though the car was NOT warranted, every effort was made PRIOR TO SALE, DURING SALE, AND AFTER SALE, to insure the plaintiff KNEW exactly what she was buying, pg 63 line 17-24 and did buy exactly what she was told, with regard to the motor. pg 13 line 14-21 and pg 14 line 1-8 (clearly indicating greed was NOT involved).
At issue: almost new transmission....testimony pg 59 line 14-24. And pg 60 line 6-8.... The court: any questions you want to ask him about his testimony ma'am? Plaintiff responds: NO SIR.
Testimony by defendant pg 61 lines 5-16 (clearly indicates OPEN TESTIMONY, NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL!
Defendant states: the existence of a problem with stated mileage and "actual" mileage on transmission was learned by the defendant NO SOONER THAN: pg 59 of testimony AND IMMEDIATE METHODS ENSUED, to correct that problem, testimony pg 61 lines 8-16! Pg 61 lines 7-8 (clearly indicate nothing to be gained by lying) when I the defendant, received that information pg 61 line 14-16,
POST-TRIAL
Motion by the defendant NOT EVEN READ pg 3 line 10-15
Citation hearing: Denial of supreme court proceedings, refusal to accept evidence pg2 line 8-19 refused to acknowlege evidence received by judge of supreme court trial sent days earlier! Pg 2 line 16-19 indicates evidence received, and simple legal TRAP ensued, set/operated by judge pg 2 line 21-22.
At issue: Does a trial proceeding through the court, in a civil case, have immunity from persecution, OR NOT?
Post Motion trial (stay) pg 2 line 21 ....$1500.00 cash bond....! Judgement was for $1290.00 TOTAL. Judge requires $210.00 MORE than judgement.
At issue: IS the requirement of MORE THAN JUDGEMENT; TYRANNY pg 3 line 6-11?
I AM FORCED TO PROVIDE A VEHICLE FOR 18 MONTHS FOR FREE, AND THEN PAY HER INTEREST ON MY MONEY!
AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLATE CASE
From the order #4-93-0441 derived from letter dated 8/26/93 appellate court, TO COUNSEL:
At issue: show cause on or before 9/2/93
Examined: mailing time (one) day, receipt of letter 8/27/93 (FRIDAY, at the earliest). I received on saturday morning 8/28/93, leaving sunday a religious day, and 3 and one half possible working days, (1) more day for return mail. The result JUSTICE is dependant UPON formal knowlege of rule 342 and 343 existed. JUSTICE would be dismissed within 3 and a half working days, after notice is received, based upon "rule 342 and 343, IF NOT COMPLIED TO."
An examination of rule 342: Appendix to the brief; shall include a copy of the judgement....notice of appeal, and a complete table of contents...(1) the nature of each document (2) in case of ....date of filing (3) the name.....
An examination of rule 343: Times for filing and serviceing briefs: (a) time appellant shall file within 35 days.....(c) extending or shortening time.......amended 9/1/1974. ILL supreme court ....when the appellant fails to file a brief when due.....dismissed....UNLESS within 14 days of the entry date of that order, the appellant......!
At issue, IS JUSTICE: from the dictionary; the quality of being just (correct), impartial (without preference), or fair (concerned with equality and right)?
NO dissention is made as to the need for all pertinent materials. HOWEVER the issue raised: I, the appellant, came to court expecting FAIR, IMPARTIAL, and just consideration of a conflict with the appellee, and instead am REQUIRED to confront, RATHER than receive instruction; Discrimination is the RESULT. Reliance WAS made upon a reasonable relationship between DUE PROCESS AND A PROPER PURPOSE.
This complaint directs the court to: Bias against the poor OR those who lack a formal legal education.
Rule 342 and 343 WERE COMPLIED WITH, within the time limit.
An examination of the order 9/2/93 appellate court. APPEAL DISMISSED: In response to a rule....the document does not comply with supreme court rules 341 & 344 concerning FORM AND CONTENT of briefs, THE MANNER OF FILING, AND THE NUMBER OF COPIES. .....also fails to provide citations to any authority....(A LIE). A COHERENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND, UNDERSTANDABLE BY THE COMMON CITIZEN WAS PROVIDED!.......violates rule 341 (e) (7)...... In view of the substantial failure of appellant to comply with supreme court rules concerning FORM AND CONTENT......DISMISSED!
AT ISSUE: WHEN DID JUSTICE OR LAW BECOME A SUPREME COURT RULE?
An examination of: the Notice of an appeal filed may 20, 1993 and its subsequent brief mailed sept 1, 1993 (ONE DAY BEFORE JUDGEMENT OCCURRED)
{INFERRED: they didn't even read or wait for it, mailing would take away that day}
SHALL PROVE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE with rule 341 (e) (7)
This complaint directs the court to: A MOCK TRIAL
A RULE IS NOT A LAW
A RULE DOES NOT ESTABLISH JUSTICE IN THE CASE.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT HAVE BEEN ATTACKED.
An examination of Judicial Inquiry board nov 23, 1993 Information.....meets one day each month.....has only limited authority..."CANNOT intervene, review......take action against....has NO jurisdiction......cannot discuss.....will not engage in debate...publicly. " THE MANY GRIEVANCES....a complaint of a single instance....but subsequent complaints of the same nature against the same judge MAY ULTIMATELY call for board action......intangible, benefit.
This complaint directs the court to: FAILURE of the state, NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE JUSTICE, BUT to provide an adequate method for intervention and REMOVAL. The court is further reminded, EACH CITIZEN IS admonished to bear TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE to support and defend the constitution and the laws of the United States.
At issue: DEFINE? DOES THIS JUDICIARY COMPLY?
AN EXAMINATION FO SUPREME COURT CASE 76128
Petition for leave to appeal, Denied. Dated dec 1, 1993: Mandate issued to the appellate court 12/23/93 NO CAUSE, NO REASON, NO LAW, NO APPEAL within the state of IL authority (PROVIDES, DEFINITION OF TYRANNY).
Within supreme court documents case #76128 IS: the DEMAND, "SHOW ME THE LEGISLATIVE LAW, AND DEFEND THE JUDICIAL SUPPOSITION, that a supreme court rule is greater than the LAW".
Within supreme court documents: Questions involving the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; supported within the trial by reproducable evidence, as well as trial documentation, and judicial misconduct.
Within supreme court documents: Record of a judge who exceeded his authority, record of a judge who committed SLANDER, and a complete failure to stay within the boundaries of LAW!
Within supreme court documents: a reminder of Judicial DUTY, CONSCIENCE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE! An oral contract with the court dismissed and the question: IS LAW THE AUTHORITY OR HAS THE JUDGE DISCARDED LAW, and become a TYRANT?
FORMALLY NOTED: I, James F. Osterbur, DO DEFEND: MY NAME AND MY LIFE, within this case; as FRAUD is a single word for liar and thief! My life, and my Name are IMPORTANT POSSESSIONS TO ME!
This case denied DUE PROCESS TO ME, in that NO MENTION of fraud was made until the judgement. HAD I, been informed, the trial would have been conducted differently, even so it was the judge NOT the plaintiff who accused me! The appellate court, cast doubt: ARE THEY PROTECTING THE JUDGE OR THE CITIZEN? The IL supreme court received court documentation case #76128 and issued a ONE WORD STATEMENT: "DENIED".
An examination of this type of arbitrary court REVEALS:
The court is unable to defend its action.
The court is unwilling to rely upon LAW.
The court has TAKEN for itself exclusive privilege.
The court protects itself NOT THE PUBLIC.
The court DOES NOT BELIEVE, the common public citizen is its governing body!
The court HAS OVERRULED the legislative, and executive branch and made ITS OWN RULES SUPERIOR TO JUSTICE OR LAW!
THE REALITY OF LIVING: JUSTICE IS GREATER THAN LAW, AND LAW IS GREATER THAN RULE, IS DENIED!
At issue:....."citations of supporting authority..." within the initial, notice of appeal filed 5/20/93 CITATIONS OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARD are made (again this case is about a car). Clear reference is made of LACK OF DUE PROCESS (1st page). Testimony identifying specific evidence plaintiff received what the defendant sold (page 2). Specific contract issues identified which were discarded. Proper and reasonable evidence stating defendants character (page 5) and considerable proof provided. within the brief 9/1/93 Identification of CLEAR, IMPROPER, AND BIAS'D, and illegal procedure by the judge!
A failure to identify these realities coupled with the CLEAR DESIRE, by the appellate court, to "get rid of", this case without cause, can only lead to the conclusion: "Protection of another member of, "the profession", MORE IMPORTANT than, Justice to the common citizen"!
The REALITY of even the SMALLEST indication of truth, to the above statement, DEFINES FUNDAMENTAL PLUNDERING OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECREES AND MANDATES, within the Judicial system of the state of IL HAS OCCURRED!
Those Decrees in part are: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE.
THE "VIRGINIA" BILL OF RIGHTS adopted june 12, 1776
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION
THE CODE OF ETHICS
OATH OF OFFICE
AND
THE HONOR BESTOWED UPON THE OFFICE OF JUDGE, BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!
Justice asks the question: Who deserves the final authority among men/women?
The U.S. Supreme Court has declared: "they are the final authority"! The Constitution differs with this statement, establishing "the government as a whole", has the final authority. The government IS, THE PEOPLE. Therefore the only conclusion that can be substantiated is THE PEOPLE ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY.
Having established authority through Democracy (one person, one vote) comes the question: What authority, and how is it to be established!
The Foundation of the U.S. Constitution is its beginning: "WE, the people....." ALL the remaining words go to simple organizational limits and responsibilities or to amendments, (HOW to best describe the foundation words through legislature). In its day, when communication was difficult, at best; this was the Best government could do.
ALL THINGS CHANGE, COMMUNICATION IS EASY, THE MASSES ARE EDUCATED, AND THE VOTE IS ORGANIZED AND SIMPLE. With all due respect, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO DIRECTLY CONTROL, IS READY!
Our Authority, "WE the people", extends to whatever, the MASSES, can choose for themselves. These things ARE: the fundamental principles through which all other decisions are made! These things could include: Environmental compliance, the budget equation, freedoms that affect HOW, WHY, AND WHO.
"WE the people," pay the bill, fight the war, protect ourselves and each other, THIS RIGHT IS OURS!
The establishment of this authority is "one person, one vote) AFTER sufficient opportunity to hear and decide!
a footnote: Fundamental rights or principles CAN NOT be expressed UNLESS, the words and expressions are limited.
The definition of those words and expressions: MUST CONFORM to the PUBLIC PERCEPTION and therefore chosen BY THE PUBLIC, BY VOTE!
Constitutional Authority IS GRANTED for change, WITHIN THE WORDS: "WE the people...., IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION.....and secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution....
At issue: the directive, "in order to form a more perfect union" MUST BE CONSTRUED; to be an ACTIVE (NOT DORMANT) passage, or mandate to the people, "We the people", (OURSELVES) to alter or RE-INVENT government, when that government shall be found inadequate or contrary to the common benefit, protection, and security of the people (SO SAYS, the "virginia" Bill of Rights, adopted june 12, 1776 as a firm and coherent DEFINITION OF; WHY FIGHT FOR THIS REVOLUTION?)
This Mandate IS FURTHER DECLARED: A declaration July 4, 1776 ".....to secure these RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it"......."institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness....."
At issue: the purpose, "and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Liberty as defined: the power to be FREE. This power is founded in government and IS: THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
At issue: Ownership, "....do ordain and establish this constitution...." These words DO NOT seek a intervention or radical change RATHER, presentation and qualification as is necessary to Democratic (one person, one vote) change!
Democratic (by the people) change, WILL FUNCTION CORRECTLY! The reality involved, requires MORE THAN majority rule, it IS herey suggested adequate representation is determined by NO LESS THAN 70% IN FAVOR (the issue arises again at ______years). NO LESS THAN 80% (the issue arises again at ______years. NO LESS THAN 90% (the issue arises again at ________years)!
Preliminary voting determines a single description, the vote is YES OR NO, (preliminary voting means, by the people).
It can NOT be Democratic UNLESS: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, FUNDAMENTAL RESTRAINTS, THE RIGHT OF CHOICE, AND A RELIANCE UPON! {INFERRED: the Constitution}
Determinations MUST BE: Capable of reaching EVERY man/woman!
Forced to confront: ISSUE is now taken: "with the use of a foreign language in the midst of FREE ACCESS to legal information." The case Miranda V. Arizona clearly established the RIGHT TO BE PROPERLY INFORMED (fraud is a criminal charge)! In a language that is understood.
At issue: MUST I, study a foreign language (NOT the language, commonly stated, the language of the land) TO OBTAIN JUSTICE. It is hereby stated, I, have been, to ALL availiable legal assistance (lawyers), availiable in this area, NONE have been helpful. I, further DO state, I cannot afford the stated price of lawyers at this locale. THEREFORE I am confronted by: language barriers NOT suited to JUSTICE, for the common man/woman!
NO, possibility is allowed for arguements involving a "dead language". ALL LANGUAGE IS INTERPRETED AND THEREBY THE SAME!
Consequently the use of a foreign language must be concluded as: WENT BEYOND CONGRESSIONAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, OR "JUDICIAL POWER," to impose; "the SECRECY, OR SECRET SOCIETY," upon the public of a language NOT their own!
At issue: The DISRESPECT evident: "within the appellate court order 9/2/93 "In view.....substantial failure...to comply...concerning form and content of brief...DISMISSED,...."; for the common citizen!
The result of which IS CONTEMPT for that citizen, "A LACK OF RESPECT"!
The broader ISSUE: What constitutes, "SUBSTANTIAL FAILURE"?
FOR THE PUBLIC: When the ISSUES and actions relevant to the understanding of time and circumstance are fully disclosed, in such a way, as the average JURY could easily understand; THEN THE JUDGE MUST UNDERSTAND, OR GIVE UP his/her position!
Point of fact: These words are the essence and foundation of a JURY TRIAL! AND A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL OF DEMOCRATIC RULE!
THE DISTINCTION IS: AUTHORITY VERSUS POWER!
THE TEST PRESENTED, IS THEN: DOES THE COURT SYSTEM OF ILLINOIS EXERT PROPER AUTHORITY (AS DEMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS PEOPLE) OR DOES THE COURT SYSTEM PROCLAIM POWER OVER THE PEOPLE (WHICH IS TYRANNY)?
CITATIONS
SCHECTER POULTRY CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES 295 U.S. 495, 55 S. CT. 837, 79 L. ED. 1570 (1935)
Question involves "codes of fair competition".
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES
....Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power...powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are no at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the tenth amendment "the powers NOT delegated......to the people."
Applied to; the issue of foreign language, or writings that constitute "foreign language" for the majority.
At issue: DO the people KNOW the law, OR has the court HIDDEN the law? (from the majority)
The broader issue: "Ignorance of the law is NO excuse" IS TYRANNY, IF, that law was hidden OR the majority could NOT readily describe such restraint as necessary and logical. The issues of RIGHT TO KNOW, exceed issues represented by
could/should have known.
MARBURY V. MADISON 1 CRANCH 137, 2 L.ED. 60 (1803)
Question involves: Right to a commission and subsequent jurisdiction issues.
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
The first object of inquiry is- has the applicant a right to the commission demands? 2. ....second inquiry: which is: If he has a right....do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
As applied to the question: IS Constitutional doctrine sufficiently broad (We the people,.....in order to form a more perfect union....) to allow the public citizen, opportunity to be informed, and then the RIGHT TO VOTE PERSONALLY (one person, one vote) on the broad/basic issues, through mass communication; RATHER THAN, to vote for someone, to vote for me/us!
THE ISSUE: BRING THE MAJOR ISSUE TO ME (THE PUBLIC CITIZEN) THAT I MAY VOTE MYSELF!
Chief Justice Marshall: That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected...The judical power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say, that in using it, the constitution should not be looked into?
Examined in detail: The issue represented is a simple one; WHO holds the greater power, the people (as a vast majority) or the "government"?
2. Has communication, education, and the means to obtain an accurate vole, become sufficient for TRUE DEMOCRACY (majority rule) OR NOT?
The fundamental issue becomes: ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE READY, AND ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABLE, TO CONTROL THEIR DESTINY, BY VOTING ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THEMSELVES!
GIBBONS V. OGDEN 9 WHEAT. 1, 6 L.ED. 23 (1824)
A case involving exclusive privilege
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: ....As men whose intentions require NO concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots, who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule, that the objects for which it was given, especially, when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction...."
Examined within: "let me vote for the issue myself". The words...."employed words in their natural sense..." may be assumed as a living entitlement, justifying a further escape from the bonds of servitude (where other men/women control) to a truer democracy where one person/one vote decides, within well-defined borders of EQUALITY, HONESTY, AND RIGHT, such as a written constitution provides. To those concerned, the constitution was written and provided by revolutionariesl, BUT these words are NOT revolutionary, they are rather a fulfillment, of the ideals; as BEST men/women of this day, can make them.
The fundamental issue: who BEST protects and honors the DECREED CONSTITUTIONAL (MAJORITY RULE) MANDATES, REQUIREMENTS, AND RIGHTS; the people or representatives of the people?
Examined in detail: The issue represented IS,
MAJOR REALITIES WHICH SHALL INVADE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SUCH AS:
WHERE THE MONEY IS SPENT.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.
SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION.
DISTINCT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
"BOUNDARY MARKERS", whereby government employees/officials are, FIRED AND PENALIZED!
ETC!
The test examined: YES, WE DO; means a clear and distinct opportunity for discussion shall be proved by government, RESULTING in a populace vote to decide, IF WE WANT, to obtain and use such an opportunity as this.
The construction of such a test as this REQUIRES A CLEAR AND DISTINCT CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION AND AS SUCH, FALLS WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER!
Controversy established: History suggests, every attempt to alter the current power, political, judicial, or otherwise WILL be met with resistence. The controversy begins with the LEGAL DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY, to do otherwise would be to discredit a system that has brought the American people this far (there is NO INTENTION to do so).
ONCE the legal constitutional decisions, as provided within, "the powers no delegated.....NOR prohibited by it are reserved......to the people."
At issue: "the powers not delegated".
Examined at, "its own test" from MARTIN [FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE] V. HUNTERS LESSEE
MARTIN [FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE] V. HUNTERS LESSEE 1 WHEAT 304, 4 L.ED. 97 (1816)
A case of state court V. constitutional powers
JUSTICE STORY: ......Preamble of the Constitution declares, by "the people of the United States." There can be no doubt, that it was competant to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend OR RESTRAIN these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and ....on the other hand, this instrument, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms; and where a power is expressly given, in general terms, it is not to be restrained to particular cases, unless that construction grows out of context, expressly, or by necessary implication. Teh words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and NOT in a sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.
The constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did NOT SUIT the purposes of the people, in framing this great charter of OUR LIBERTIES, to provide for minute specifications of its powers, OR TO DECLARE THE MEANS BY WHICH THOSE POWERS SHOULD BE CARRIED INTO EXECUTION..........IT COULD NOT BE FORSEEN, WHAT NEW CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS OF POWER MIGHT BE INDISPENSABLE TO EFFECTUATE THE GENERAL OBJECTS OF THE CHARTER; restrictions and specifications, which at present, might seem salutary,....the public interests, should require......"this constitution...
IT IS THE CASE, THEN, AND NOT THE COURT, THAT GIVES THE JURISDICTION.
OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES 9 WHEAT 738, 6 L.ED. 204 (1824)
Jurisdictional question enlarged.
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: "That the Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution....."This clause enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of actingt on it.....asserts his rights...,
The question: "has an injury occurred"? The study of cases 92s2991 gen 4-93-0441, & 76128, shall confirm an injury has occurred.
Further stated: the massive debt of government is a public/personal injury. Lawlessness is a fact. And MANY MORE attempts for change, by the representatives of the people are public/personal injuries. These are the injuries which call for the statements.
LET ME/US VOTE FOR THE ISSUES THEMSELVES, IF I MUST PAY, THEN LET ME/US CHOOSE!
This issue as stated does encompass public health and welfare.
WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.CT. 578, 81 L.ED 703 (1937)
A case of minimum responsibilities
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES: ....It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty....liberty, SAFEGUARDED IS LIBERTY in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people. Liberty under the constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and IS adopted in the interests of the community is due process. This essential limitatiton of liberty in general governs freedom of contract in particular....fourteenth amendment had been broadly described.
Examined, as a contract: The representatives of the people, being duly elected, have a contract, granted; that a minimum OR BETTER level of economic, civil, police, and military shall be maintained. The distinct realities of DEBT, as a nation, and other areas' HAVE NOT been maintained at minimal levels.
within the personal case; (I am not communist).
DE JONGE V. OREGON 299 U.S. 353, 57 S.CT. 255, 81 L.ED. 278 (1937)
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES: ....conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process....
the public case based upon "a change is needed""
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES:l ....safeguarding the community....more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, TO THE END THAT GOVERNMENT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THAT CHANGES, IF DESIRED, MAY BE OBTAINED BY PEACEFUL MEANS. THEREIN LIES THE SECURITY OF THE REPUBLIC,
THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS 310 U.S. 586M 60 S.CT. 1010, 84 L.ED. 1375 (1940)
A case of "conflicting claims of liberty and authority".
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: ....Except where the transgression of constitutional liberty is too plain for arguement, personal freedom is best maintained so long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed when it is ingrained in a peoples' habits and not enforced against popular policy by the coercion of adjudicated law.
MR. JUSTICE STONE: ....The constitution....It is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey, if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free government can exist.
EUCLID V. AMBLER REALITY CO. 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.CT. 114, 71 L.ED. 303 (1926)
A case about changing conditions
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND: ...."while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise..."
IN CONCLUSION: OUR GUARANTEE, that those WORDS which WE, the American people ACCEPT AS VALID, for protecting, supporting, and submitting to, HAVE BEEN HARRASSED by misinterpretation, and outright denial!
My own case examines th obstruction to justice, and the myriad obstacles, that constitutional doctrines and the people who made them DEMAND, this should never be.
The Declaration of Independence says it best: ...."we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable RIGHTS; that among these, are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.....and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
The common remark, "WHAT CAN I DO?" Becomes the common DEMAND: ADMINISTER JUSTICE, OR RELINQUISH THE RIGHT, OR YOU WILL BE REPLACED!
THE VAST MAJORITY, ARE THE GOVERNMENT!
Within court decisions that are common, IS THE REALITY, the court wishes and DOES: "MAKE AN EXAMPLE" out of individual cases. There is perhaps NO GREATER DENIAL OF JUSTICE, THAN THIS. WE ARE EQUAL, to make anyone pay one penny, or one minute, more than JUSTICE ALLOWS IS ABSOLUTE TYRANNY!
Each is to pay for their own crime, NOT SOMEONE ELSES'
THIS IS CORRUPTION! And its purpose is to destroy the FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY, which is: WE, are each one, EQUAL AND FREE!
Unfortunately, reality requires that RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES MUST BE FOUGHT FOR.
In this country, at this time, we as a people NEED to examine our constitution and our rights and "CLEAN HOUSE"!
Nothing works better than "turning on the lights, opening the doors, and being TRUTHFUL about whatever we find"!
REMEMBER, WE THE PEOPLE, (VAST MAJORITY) ARE THE LAW (BY VOTE).
Summation of the personal case: It is my distinct opinion the car was either damaged when badly overheated by the plaintiff (possibly causing a bearing race to slip) OR was tampered with! NEITHER is my fault!
It is my desire to be FAIR in literal terms. Being FAIR MEANS being fair to me, as well!
ITEM #71
1111
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS
CASE 94-2001
A WRIT OF RIGHT
1. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action based upon
DUE PROCESS DENIED
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The right to be PROPERLY INFORMED, prior to court proceedings.
The TEST; Did the Plaintiff in curcuit court case 92s2991 CHARGE THE DEFENDENT with fraud in the Subpoena, clearly and decisively, or in the case itself .
The DEMAND; Failure to charge, cannot result in a JUDGEMENT of fraud; ERASE that judgement.
AUTHORITY; a United States Constitutional question, Amendments 6 & 14 "right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation".
2. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon
Judicial impartiality.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does the law allow, a sitting judge, presiding over a case, be both prosecutor and judge of said case, during judgement.
The TEST; Can a judge find a defendant guilty of a crime he has NOT been charged with? As applied to case 92s2991.
The DEMAND; Issue the Statue and substantiate the law. REVERSE the decision.
AUTHORITY; A Constitutional question, state of illinois, section 2. and section 12.
AUTHORITY;' Constitution of united states, amendments 6 and 14.
3. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon LIBEL.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does a sitting judge, ACCUSED of stepping away from his bench, to become the prosecutor, during trial judgement, case 92s2991, LOSE his claim to impartial (becoming as a public citzen during those minutes), and thereby , his protection from retribution.
The TEST; Does BIAS; failure to uphold DUE PROCESS, determine a personal attack? Therefore NOT a judicial act.
The DEMAND; Establish the Boundary between personal attack and a judicial act.
AUTHORITY; A constitutional question United States, article 3, section 1. "during good behavior".
4. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon
DUE PROCESS
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does procedure as applied to supreme court rules 341-344, found within gen 4-93-0441, exceed the court authority, as used, and deny a citizens' right to demand justice, within fundamental principles and clear but simple phraseology.
The TEST; Was the right to Due Process involved within the appeals process, as seen within gen 4-93-0441, fundamental justice, or a denial of equal protection under the law, or a corruption.
The DEMAND; Establish the boundary between justice and procedure.
The AUTHORITY; Constitutional question, State of Illonis, sections 1,2,12,20,23,24
Constitution United States, establish justice,.....secure the blessings of liberty. Amendment 14.
5. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon ESTABLISHING JUSTICE, AND INSURING DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does a state supreme court have the right to ignore a constitutional question.
The TEST; Does the question, distinctly and clearly demanding a constitutional answer, as seen in case 76128, applied to civil suit 92s2991, deserve an answer? Does the LAW demand an answer?
The DEMAND; Establish the law, and keep it.
AUTHORITY; An Oath of office issue, "the constitution is first".
Constitution, state of illinois, sections 1,2,12,20,23,24
Constitution, United States, Amendments 6, "to be informed"
14, "due process", and 9, "Equal".
6. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does the public citizen have the right to pose a constitutional question, "in order to form a more perfect union," and expect the court to answer within constitutional doctrines.
The TEST; IS DEMOCRACY, BY THE PEOPLE OR NOT?
The DEMAND; ISSUE a clear concise determination answering the question, as posed, within said documents of this case 94-2001, that being, "the opportunity for the people(public) to directly control, the major factors, which influence their lives, by ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, is ready".
AUTHORITY; A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ,UNITED STATES," WE THE PEOPLE........."
7. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon JUSTICE DENIED.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Defined as a SIMPLE WARRANTY CASE 92s2991 exceeds the right of the court, to issue said judgement. Defined as a SIMPLE DUE PROCESS CASE gen 4-93-0441 exceeds the right of the court to refuse judgement. Defined as a SIMPLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION CASE 76128 exceeds the right of the court, based upon their Oath of office, to issue denial without comment.
The TEST; Define case 92s2991, define case 4-93-0441, define case 76128, in clear understandable english, for the common citizen, WITHIN the common demand for justice, describing clearly WHERE WAS IT.
The DEMAND; $1,000,000.00 one million dollars from/by the State of Illinois, over and above current expenditures, for use in, "Corruption of the court cases".
AUTHORITY; Constitution state of illinois, preamble sections 1,2,12,17-19(discrimination against the poor), 20,23,24
Constitution, united states; establish justice, amendments 6, & 14.
8. This pleading shall construct a civil rights case Based upon A MOCK INQUIRY.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; A judicial inquiry board, of the state of illinois, with NO authority.
The TEST; Does the judicial inquiry board, as instituted by the state of illinois, constitute a true mechanism for the protection of the common citizen, from illegal judicial actions?
The DEMAND; Establish a true judicial inquiry board, for the common citzen, WITH AUTHORITY. Redefine judicial immunity, as found in order 94-2001, january 11,1994, or abolish.
AUTHORITY; CONSTITUTION state of illinois, preamble, section 1,2,12,20,23,24
CONSTITUTION, United States, "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty..."
9. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon DENIAL IS PERSECUTION.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Refusal of the lower court to acknowledge a continuence of trial, civil suit, through a higher court, evidence refused, defendant examined.
The test; Citation hearing 92s2991, DOES examination prior to court appeal process rulings, constitute illegal search/invasion of privacy?
The DEMAND; Reasonable judical action regarding disciplinary action, toward judge Harry E. Clem!
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, section 6,2, 20,23.
Constitution, United States, article 4, amendment 14
Declaration of independence; "let the facts be submitted".
10. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon TRYANNY.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The assessment of penalty, case 92s2991. Being based upon illegal procedure, unfounded evidence, and heresay; The judge demands full refund plus interest and during motion trial tells plaintiff, "you could have had more,____".
The TEST; Case 92s2991 examined to determine the extent of injury to the plaintiff, and thereby a FAIR DECISION.
The DEMAND; Establish methods of evaluation by which fair treatment to each party in a courtroom is insured.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble "an orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality...."
The declaration of independence, united states, "...all men created equal....."
Constitution, United States, ".....establish justice....."
11. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon, RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; A review of gen 4-93-0441 indicates an unjust time allotment to reply to court directives.
The TEST; Is JUSTICE served by MINIMAL OR NO time allotments for compliance to court directives, as applied to gen 4-93-0441.
The DEMAND; Establish NEW Boundaries, and issue compliance procedures at the circuit and appellate court levels, which assure adequate reasonable procedural knowledge, for EVERY LITIGANT, before during and after trial and appeal. And for disciplinary action to the appellate court if UNJUST proven.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, section 1,2,12, 17-19 (discrimination against those without legal training), 20,23.
Constitution, United States, ".....establish justice....." amendment 5, 6,14
12. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon TRYANNY.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Defined by case 4-93-0441, appellate court orders rule 342, 343, were not complied with. Compliance within the alloted time frame results in immediate dismissal based upon, "court rules 341-344."
The TEST; Examine gen 4-93-0441to determine, JUSTICE. Rule upon; Dismissal, exceeds the court demand to the appellant, IS THIS FAIR, based upon, RIGHT TO KNOW.
The DEMAND; Reasonable judicial disciplinary action toward the appellate court judges. Establish the law.
AUTHORITY; A constitutional question, state of illinois, section 1,2,12,20,23,24 and the preamble.
Illinois courts commission rules 3,5,11
Constitution, United States, ...."establish justice....secure the blessings of liberty..."
Amendments 5,6,14
13. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon BIAS.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The poor (unable to afford an attorney) or those lacking a formal legal education are routinely denied, through procedural formalities, cases 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, 76128, order 94-2001, and cases, "memorandum of law."
The TEST; Evaluation of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, for the purpose of justice; case 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, 76128, order jan 11, 1994, 94-2001.
The DEMAND; Structure suitable EQUAL PROTECTION, for the poor, accomplishing justice under law! An apology from the court.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble sections 1,2,12,20,23,24.
Illinois courts commission, rules of procedure; 3,5,11
Constitution, United States, ....."establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for us all...."
amendments 5, 6, 14
Declaration of Independence......"all men created equal"...
14.This pleading shall construct a civil rights action based upon, COMPREHENDIBLE FACTS.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The words and statements of cases 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, 76128, and order 94-2001, are UNDERSTANDABLE, to the common citizen. The issues and simple statements presented therein, represent common knowledge (warranty, due process), and are common dialogue within a JURY TRIAL.
The TEST; Establish the principle of law that notices the difference between material and wording suitable to a jury, which can be dismissed by a judge.
The DEMAND; Accept JUSTICE, WITHIN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, Re-estabilish the use of, "ordinary, plain and concise" rule 5, and "simple and summary" rule 11 of the illinois courts commission, rules of procedure.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble, section 4, as applied to ..."the truth...shall be a sufficient defense..."
sections 1(to do the best, he/she can) ,2,12,17-19 (discrimination issue), 20,23,24.
Constitution, United states, ...."establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, secure the blessings of liberty...."
amendment 6,14
Declaration of Independence.
15. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon CHARGES OF CORRUPTION.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The myraid of grievences associated with the several courts involved in this case 94-2001 have instigated the following action.
15A. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon, A COALITION OF PRINCIPLES (JUDGES), against the Public good.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; REview of gen 4-93-0441 and 76128, clearly establish equal protection of the law, WAS ABANDONED, substantive review of each higher court case CLEARLY INDICATES THE JUDGE OR JUDGES, of the lower court in trouble.
The TEST; Establish whether JUSTICE, or protection of the lower court judge was best being served, within the reality of choices, cases 4-93-0441 and 76128.
The DEMAND; ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES WHEREIN INSTANT DISMISSAL OCCURS FOR UNETHICAL JUDICAL DECISIONS. Establish an effective judicial inquiry board, for the common citizen.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, Sections 1,2,12,20,23,24 preamble.
Rules of procedure, illinois courts commission rule 5, 11.
Constitution, United States, ..."establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, ....."
Declaration of independence, ...."mock trail"...
15.B. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon FINAL AUTHORITY.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; It is said the Supreme court demands final authority over the constitution and its interpretation. The Constitution DECLARES; WE THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union,.......and secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES, AND OUR POSTERITY.....!
The TEST; In a Democracy, DOES A VOTE BY THE MAJORITY, on specific issues of major importance,CONSTITUTE TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL, one person, one vote RULE!
The DEMAND; " the opportunity for the public to control is ready"!
A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION?
15.c. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon DENIAL OF INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The use of a foreign language, effectively constitutes denial of access, and tryanny.
The TEST; ALL language is interpreted, and thereby the same. Use of a foreign language in law or legal statements or court actions or order, constitutes an unfair barrier, to the law, and thereby to justice.
The DEMAND; ALL Court proceedings, ALL law must be accomplished within the language of the land, and exception may only involve a specific instance of language barrier, between litigants.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble, sections 1 through 24
THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AND UNDERSTAND IS DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY.
CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES, ....."ESTABLISH JUSTICE....." Amendments 5, 6, 14.
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; ....."CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED......."
15.d. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, an unsupported unconstitutional wrong.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; NOT all courtroom acts are judicial acts.
The TEST; Define absolute, as found within order Jan 11, 1994, page 3 case #94-2001
The DEMAND; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".... Establish justice.
AUTHORITY; DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
The DEMAND; Establish immunity CLEARLY DEFINED by CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE.
AUTHORITY; Virginia bill of rights, section 2,3,4,7,15
Constitution, United States, article 3; ....."shall hold their office during good behavior...."
16. This pleading shall construct a constitutional Rights case Based upon FULL DUE PROCESS.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Defined by cases 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, and 76128. The due process denied, and subsequent denial of appeal, and subsequent denial of a constitutional question DIRECTLY RELATING to said cases, DOES NOT constitute a DE NOVO trial.
The TEST; Examine cases 92s2991, 4-93-0441, and 76128, for evidence, as applied to the wording, order 94-2001.
The DEMAND; Constitutional Right, is an examination of constitutional law and decree,RESULTING IN JUSTICE: institute summary dismissal of judgement 92s2991, aquitting the defendant, based upon denial of due process. ERECT judicial authority, as JUSTICE SERVED, NOT procedural denial.
AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble, section 1,2,12,20.23,24.
Constitution United States, ......"establish justice ......secure the blessings of liberty...." Amendments 5,6,14
Declaration of Independence ....."a mock trial...."
Rules of procedure, Official illinois courts commission, rule 5, ....."shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language...."
rule 11 ....."shall be simple and summary as may reasonably be...."
Virginia bill of rights; section 3 and 15
AN INQUIRY
is hereby demanded, prior to., initiating trial 94-2001, regarding order received, filed Jan 11, 1994.
PURPOSE; TO DETERMINE BIAS.
The QUESTION; REFERENCE TO criminal
The TEST; page 6, of the "four volumes" clearly defines the trial, the only trial, 92s2991 was about a car, the subpoena, reproduced in the record, "four volumes" clearly defines, car warranty issue, an assumption has been made by this federal court that a criminal charge can exist within the context of the plaintiffs charge, "The car ran fine, until I overheated it; then the defendant paid for the motor (half), I accepted as full payment; then the defendant fixed the motor for me, at no charge; then I owned the car for a year and a half, and something is wrong again!"
Case 92s2991 is undoubtedly about mechanical failure of an automobile, MONTHS after purchase. The case is NOT, by the plaintiffs' charge, about the defendant or his conduct, but a mechanical failure of a car.
The DEMAND; Examine case 92s2991 to determine: IF this was a criminal case, the LAW (RIGHT TO BE INFORMED, RIGHT TO COUNSEL) was broken.
Therefore according to Miranda V. Arizona, this verdict 92s2991 must be overturned, the defendant reimbursed, and case 94-2001 commenced as introduced.
IF this was not a criminal case the ISSUE OF LIBEL is strongly supported.
AUTHORITY; IL court of claims.
Constitution, State Of Illinois, section 2,12,20,23.
Constitution, United States, Amendment 5,6,14
17. This pleading shall construct a civil rights case Based upon EQUAL PROTECTION;
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; case 92s2991, suggests a penalty far exceeding the evidence OR the charge; IS THIS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?
The TEST; Examine, ..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL....." IS IT LAWFUL, to "make an example of anyone, by inflicting a penalty exceeding the norm, for that offense."
The DEMAND; ...."laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them (the people) shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......" EQUAL PROTECTION MEANS EQUAL PUNISHMENT! Establish, Equality through JUSTICE.
AUTHORITY; Declaration of Independence
Virginia Bill of Rights, sections 1,3,14,15.
Constitution United States, ....."provide for the common defense....."
Constitution, state of illinois, Preamble,
section 1. Inherent and inalienable rights.
section 2. Due process and equal protection.
section 12 Right to remedy and justice.
section 23. Fundamental principles.
AND IN CONSIDERATION OF/FOR THE "PUBLIC LITIGANT"
18. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon INALIENABLE RIGHTS.
The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Failure of the United States Government to; (change with the times) TRUST the men and women of this country to be sufficient of themselves, in electing by one person/ one vote, the president of this nation.
The TEST; Has Education, Communication, and the honest Vote, changed; thereby making the Electoral college OBSOLETE.
The DEMAND; REPEAL amendment 12, ...."vote...choice of electors...", RATIFIED july 27,1804, United States Constitution, and TRUST the citizens, giving them their rightful station: A VOTE THAT IS HONEST AND TRUE, majority rule.
Revise amendment 14, ....."vote....choice of electors..."
AUTHORITY; Constitution, United States, ...."secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
amendment 14, 19,....."vote shall not be denied or abridged...." 24,26.
Declaration of Independence, ...."all men created equal...governments...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends....."
Virginia Bill of Rights; ... which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
sections 1,2,3,4,6,7,14,15.
In view of the magnitude of public issues and the Reality; the plaintiff is NOT a lawyer.
I, JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR, DO hereby submit these issues addressed within case 94-2001, require significant legal knowledge, to properly protect the public interest and therefore, DO, hereby make my request for legal counsel, to be provided by the state, for all matters perceived as a public, or criminal interest.
the court has noted these proceedings are filed in, forma pauperis, and therefore the plaintiff MUST depend upon the Court for Justice, and EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
case 94-2001
JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS
POWELL V. ALABAMA 53 SCt 55, 287 US 45, 77LEd 158 (1932) The court declared that; The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel..... The failure of the trial court to make an EFFECTIVE appointment of counsel, was a denial of due process within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.
As applied to case 92s2991 and order 94-2001 filed Jan 11, 1994, page 3, "a copy of C.D.I.L. RULE 2.12, " pretrail procedures in prisoner cases." and its pleadings.
JOHNSON V. ZERBST 58 SCt 1019, 304 US 458, 82 LEd 1461 (1938) ".... that the trial judge has the serious and weighty responsibilty ....... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused."
As applied to; Request for counsel 94-2001, and its pleadings.
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 86 SCt 1602, 384 US 436, 16 LEd 2d 694 (1966) The court extended the protections of the fifth and fourteenth amendments..... that he has the right to the presence of an attorney; and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one must be appointed for him.
As applied to; representation of the public issues involved in 94-2001 and its pleadings.
MUNN V. ILLINOIS 94 US 113,24 LEd 77 (1877) Declaring "public has a direct and positive interest".....and because it is, "clothed with the Public Interest".
As applied to; Due process, legal representation for the public, as a direct litigant in the pleadings 94-2001, through constitutional and public pleadings.
The court is RE-directed to the citations pages 44-65 of the "four volumes", for further memorandum of law.
The conclusionary statements of pages 66-69 may be re-interpreted as: INHERENT RIGHTS OF DEMOCRATIC, FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Represented within the "four volumes" is to be recognized; "these words reflect the common citizens outcry for justice, the words and methods of the majority, and the impact of judicial interpretation and action upon the common citizen.
This submission of a ":proper complaint", is accompanied by, "the common citizens outcry for justice" which says virtually the same thing, only the format is different, and is expected to be used in conjuction with pleadings 13 & 14 of case 94-2001 with the following memorandum of law.
BOEGER VS. BOEGER,147 ill.app.3rd 629, 498 n.e. 2d 814,101 ill.dec.490- (second district 1986), the court in referring to the Appellant's pro se brief stated:
The brief in the present case is clearly inadequate. It contains no summary of points and authorities and no fact statement as such. The section entitled "argument" consists of a rambling, often disjointed recitation of facts, often with no apparent relevance to the present litigation. It contains no indication of what, exactly, are Appellant's objections to the trial court's ruling and contains no citation of authority. The remainder of the brief consists of photocopies of various documents, many taken from the record in this cause. Their relevance to Defendant's argument is not explained.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal.
2. In WAITCUS VS. VILLAGE OF GILBERTS, 199 ill.App.3rd 102, 556 n.e.2d 1261, 145 ill.dec.359 (second district 1990), the court found the Appellant's brief lacking and stated regarding a portion of the brief:
This section of the brief is filled with conclusion and bits of facts but is totally devoid of any citation to case or statutory authority. In addition, no attempt at coherent arguement is made. This section of the brief is entirely inadequate and we consider the contentions raised therein to be waived.
3. In the case APPLICATION OF ANDERSON, 162 ill.app.3rd 815, 516 N.E.2d 860, 114 ill.Dec. 705 (second district 1987), the court pointed out:
An appellant may not make a point merely by stating it without presenting arguments in support of it, and this court will not argue a case for an appellant. A court of review is entitled to have briefs submitted that are articulate, organized, and present cohesive legal argument in conformity with supreme court rules. Any issue which has not been adequately presented to this court for review may be deemed waived. (citations omitted)
4. In BRITT VS. FEDERAL LAND BANK ASS'N. OF ST. LOUIS, 153 ill.app.3d 605, 505 N.E.2d 387, 106 ill.dec. 81 (second district 1987), the court commented:
While purporting to cite authority, generally, for what is set forth in their briefs as issues on appeal, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with supreme court rule 341(e) (7). We do not view the inclusion of citations to irrelevant authorities scattered throughout their brief to constitute even an attempt to comply with the rule. In fact, Plaintiffs' briefs are nothing more than a compilation of disjointed and nonsensical claims and legal conclusions totally unsupported by citations to the record or relevant legal authority. We may treat the issues raised as having been wiaved for failure to cite authority.
A Declaration of finanicial position of, James F. Osterbur, june 20,1994.
current account balance approx $1200.00
includes a gift received from Frank and Lucille Osterbur of $1000.00 in the 1994 year.
tax liabilities include:
earned income in 1993, $4730.65
taxed income in 1993, $2380.60
included in income is a gift from Frank and Lucille Osterbur for 1993, in the amount of $2000.00
currently working for room and board.
possessions include:
1 1985 S-10 pickup roughly $2000.00
1 20-25 year old bicycle
1 office desk and chair purchased 20 yrs ago for $300.00
1 1960's vintage boat 16' homemade conversion, roughly $2000.00
less than $500.00 (new price) hand tools and parts
1 timbersaw homemade total monetary investment roughly $500.00
1 electric hydraulic scaffolding homemade, total monetary investment roughly $500.00
1 gas forklift homemade conversion total monetary investment $300.00
Each of these 3 homemade units represents a machine capable of causing injury and as such, present very serious liability concerns if sold. My dad also has an investment in each machine.
ITEM #72
Re-typed for electronic transmission space
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FILED JAN 11, 1994
NO. 94-2001
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
STATE OF ILL
DEFENDANT
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has filed this federal action, apparently seeking review of a small claims court decision. The plaintiff claims that his rights to due process and to "democratic change" were denied in the state proceedings. The plaintiff asserts that jurisdiction exists in this court under the removal statute 28 USC 1443 (1) and because he has raised a federal question see 28 USC 1331. The plaintiff has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 USC 1915. However, the pleadings on file are unacceptable.
The documents the plaintiff has submitted do not conform to the court's filing requirements or with the federal rules of civil procedure. First, the plaintiff has not submitted a proper complaint. Rule 8 (a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Although the plaintiff has submitted four volumes of miscellaneous documents, the court cannot determine the nature of this action or even identify the defendant without a basic complaint.
The clerk shall provide the plaintiff with civil rights complaint forms. Although the plaintiff is not required to use the court's pre-printed forms, he may find them useful in drafting his complaint. The plaintiff must submit an original complaint setting forth his allegations against each defendant, along with a carbon copy or photocopy of the complaint and a completed Marshal's service form for service upon each defendant.
In addition, the plaintiff must submit a memorandum of law in support of his claims, as this action appears to be completely groundless. The court is aware of no basis for federal review of a small claims court decision.
The plaintiff evidently had a de novo trial in the circuit court, as reflected by the trial transcripts he has submitted. In addition, the plaintiff appealed the outcome of his case to the appellate and supreme courts of Ill; he has exhausted the appeal process. Notwithstanding the plaintiffs dissatisfaction with court rulings, he appears to have been afforded full due process. The court finds no authority authorizing reevaluation in the district court.
Furthermore, removal is inappropriate and untimely; according to the federal rules of civil procedure, "the notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant...."28 USC 1446 (b). The plaintiff cannot avail himself of removal procedures in this terminated action dating back at least to 1992.
Finally broadly construing this lawsuit as a civil rights action, the court notes that the eleventh amendment bars the plaintiff from suing the State of Il for damages, see Will v. Michigan dept of state police. 491 US 45 )1989). Moreover, judicial officials are entitled to absolute immunity. The supreme court repeatedly has held ed that a judge may not be held to answer in civil damages for those judicial acts committed in the exercise of his judicial capacity. Forrester v. white 484 US 219, 228 (1988); stump v sparkman 435 US 349 362-63 (1978); Pierson V. Ray, 386 US 547 (1967). Changes marked in on the various individual copies are not acceptable.
It IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff, within twenty one (21z0 days of the date of this order, submit a proper complaint (plus copies for the defendants), a separate memorandum of law in support of his claims, and completed US marshals service forms, all subject to rule 11's provisions for sanctions for frivolous pleadings. The clerk is directed to mail the plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint form, three USM 285 forms and a copy of CDIL rule 2.12, "pretrial procedures in prisoner cases".
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with the courts directives will result in denial of leave to proceed in
(Last page appears lost)
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILL
FILED FEB 8, 94
NO. 94-2001
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
STATE OF IL
DEFENDANT
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has filed this federal action, apparently seeking review of a small claims court decision. The plaintiff claims that his rights to due process and "to democratic change" were denied in the state proceedings. By order of January 11, 94, the court directed the plaintiff to submit an amended complaint, copies and completed marshal's service forms for service on the defendants, and a memorandum of law in support of his claims.
The plaintiff's response does not satisfy the courts requirements. The plaintiff's so-called "writ of right", apparently intended as an amended complaint, does not comply with Fed. r. civ. p. 8 (a) requires a "short & plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. The amended complaint does not list the parties, does not state any of the facts giving rise to the complaint, and does not indicate what relief the plaintiff seeks. After reviewing the rambling documents submitted, the court still cannot determine either the legal or factual basis for this lawsuit.
In addition, the plaintiff has failed to submit copies of the complaint and completed marshal's service forms for the defendant, as instructed. Furthermore, the court notes that the plaintiffs memorandum of law is unsigned. The court requires the plaintiff' original signature on every document filed.
The plaintiff will be given one, final opportunity to submit a basic, coherent complaint. The complaint should contain only the relevant facts underlying this lawsuit; no legal arguments or citation are necessary or will be permitted. The plaintiff is reminded that there is no appeal to the federal courts from an adverse decision in state small claims court, and that removal is not appropriate (or timely) in this case. Furthermore, judges are immune from liability for their official acts.
The plaintiff has requested counsel to assist him in pursuing this litigation. The motion will be denied. The plaintiff in a civil rights action has no absolute right to counsel. See Merritt v. Faulkner 697 F. 2d 761, 763 (7th circuit 1983). A litigant must show that he has made a reasonable attempt to retain private counsel. Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F. 2d 1070, 1072 (7th circuit 1992). Indigent parties in civil rights actions who are unable to obtain counsel may apply for the appointment of counsel under 28 USC 1915 (d) See Mckeever v. Israel 689 F. 2d 1315, 1318 (7th circuit 1982). The decision to appoint counsel under this section lies within the broad discretion of the court. IF. see also Caruth v. Pinknev 683 F.2d 1044, 1948 (7th circuit 1982) cert. denied, 459 US 1214 (1983).
In exercising its discretion a district court is guided by several factors: (1) whether the merits of the indigents claims are colorable; (2) the ability of the indigent plaintiff to investigate crucial facts; (3) whether the nature of the evidence indicates that the truth will more likely be exposed where both sides are represented by counsel; (4) the capability of the indigent litigant to present the case; and (5) the complexity of the legal issues raised by the plaintiff. Merritt, 697 F. 2d at 764, citing Maclin v. Freake, 650 F. 2d 885, 887-89 (7th circuit 1981). "only when the cases are colorable, the facts may be difficult to assemble, and the law is complex" will judges request an attorney to assist the litigant5. Diangelo v. Ill dept of public aid. 891 F. 2d 1260, 1262 (7th cir. 1989).
After considering the above factors, the court concludes that appointment of counsel is not warranted in this civil rights action. As discussed in the courts order of Jan 11, 94, the plaintiff appears to have no basis whatsoever for an action in federal court. Regardless, the plaintiff has alleged no physical or mental disability that might preclude him from adequately investigating the facts giving rise to his complaint. See Merritt 697 F. 2d 765. Furthermore, neither the legal issues raised in the complaint, nor the evidence that might support the plaintiffs claims, appear so complex or intricate that a trained attorney is necessary. The plaintiff appears more than capable of presenting his case; additionally, the court grants pro se litigants wide latitude in the handling of their lawsuits. Therefore the plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel will be denied.
It is THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, submit a proper complaint (plus copies for the defendants) and completed US marshals service forms, all subject to rule 11's provisions for sanctions for frivolous pleadings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with the courts directives will result in denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis and summary dismissal of this action, with prejudice.
Enter this 8 day of fed 1994
Harold A . Baker
United states district judge
retyped for electronic transfer space
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FILED MAR 25, 1994
NO. 94-2001
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
STATE OF ILL
DEFENDANT
ORDER
The plaintiff, James Osterbur, has brought this federal action, apparently seeking review of a small claims court decision. In his original complaint, the plaintiff claimed that his rights to due process and "to democratic change" had been denied in the state court proceedings. The plaintiff asserted that jurisdiction exists in this court under the removal statute, 28 USC 1443 (1), and because he had raised a federal question, see 28 USC 1331.
By order of jan 11, 94, the court rejected the complaint, finding no basis for jurisdiction. In its order, the court noted that the plaintiff could not remove a closed case, and that this court has no authority to review the small claims and circuit court proceedings. Nevertheless, the court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to submit an amended complaint and a memorandum of law in support of his claims.
The plaintiff's "writ of right", submitted in response to the court's order, likewise was rejected as the court still could not determine the legal or factual basis for this lawsuit after reading the plaintiff's rambling documents. However the court granted the plaintiff one, final opportunity to submit a "basic coherent complaint." The court cautioned the plaintiff to set forth only the relevant facts underlying this lawsuit and not to make legal arguments. see order of feb 8, 94.
In response, the plaintiff has submitted a class action complaint on behalf of the "common public citizen". The complaint consists of a series of legal citation and invectives against judicial corruption, "mock justice" and "unconstitutional piracy". The complaint contains no facts whatsoever in support of the plaintiffs claims. Although the plaintiff has submitted three statements of his claims, the court remains completely at a loss as to what the factual basis for this lawsuit is, or what federal cause of action the plaintiff might have.
It is well established that pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 945 (1972), reh'q denied, 405 US 945 (1972). A district court judge should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis if an action is frivolous or malicious." Wartman v. Branch 7, civil division, county court, Milwaukee county, state of WI. 510 F. 2d 130 134 (7th cir. 1975), principle reaffirmed in Bryan v. Johnson, 821 F. 2d 455, 458 (7th cir. 1987)
A frivolous complaint is one in which "the petitioner can make no rational argument in law or facts to support his or her claims for relief." Williams V. Faulkner, 837 F. 2d 304, 306 (7th cir 1988) Aff'd sub nom Neitzke v. Williams, 490 US 319 (1989). Because the plaintiff is unable to articulate a colorable claim for relief in federal court, the complaint will be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied pursuant to 28 USC 1915. The case is dismissed, without prejudice.
Enter this 25 day of Mar 1994
Harold A. Baker
United states district judge
RETYPED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF IL
NO. 94-2001
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
V
STATE OF ILL
DATED APR 19,1994
decision by court
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to order entered mar 25, 94 by judge Harold a Baker denying plaintiffs petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
John M. Waters Clerk
ITEM #73
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COURT
OSTERBUR, JAMES V. STATE OF ILLINOIS
A WRIT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY
CASE # 94-2001
FILED IN Danville Federal court 1/4/94
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Transcribed from handwritten)
Cause of action page 1 (pages refer to handwritten pages), review and intent to prove 2-4, demand 5, examination of 92-s-2991 6-11, substantive review 92-s-2991 12-17, examination of 4-93-0441 17-20, substantive review 4-93-0441, examination of judicial review 23, Substantive review judicial inquiry board 24, examination of #76128 25,26, Damage done 27, substantive review 76128 28-31, fundamental change 32-38, right to be informed 39-41, contempt by the court 41-43, citations and relevant issues 44-65, conclusion 66-68, reality 69, summation (personal) 70, documents sent to judicial inquiry board (with transcript) 71-80, evidence law, followed by initial appeal, court documents record, evidence transcripts record.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COURT
JAMES F. OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS
Cause of action: FAILURE of the government of the state of Illinois to provide, "the fundamental right of justice through the Ill courts system, that system being the circuit court, appellate court, and the state supreme court." "Therefore change is necessary!"
A review of case Cole v. Osterbur Champaign 92-s-2991/ gen 4-93-0441/ supreme 76128, SHALL PROVE: Constitutional mandates to; establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, were ABANDONED. SHALL PROVE; justice was forsaken, replaced with procedure, and that procedure did not intend nor allow compliance to be made. SHALL PROVE; the judiciary FAILED to rely upon legislative law or failed the greater test of constitutional law. SHALL PROVE; the judiciary is biased against those poor, or against those who lack formal legal education. SHALL PROVE ; the judicial inquiry of a public citizen is mocked by the court. SHALL PROVE; fundamental principles of justice have been abandoned, in favor of foreign languages, which the people do not understand, nor did they assent to! SHALL PROVE; the state provided judicial inquiry board is insufficient to its task. SHALL PROVE; there is cause, therefore fundamental change is constitutionally called for, as provided by: "WE THE PEOPLE....in order to form a more perfect union....".
THE DEMAND; is for change/ is for justice/ is for due process/ is for $1,000,000, to be used by/ from the state of ill, for the private citizen issues involving corruption of the court. over and above current funding programs. AND for a legal determination of the constitutional issues derived from; "the opportunity for the public to directly control, is ready"!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO proceed in the matters of court cases described, requesting jury trial in federal court and shall present evidence as follows. examination of the small claims complaint; ...for a 82 buick skylark.. The judges decision; for the taped record...notices the definition of fraud. This case 92-s-2991 was about a car and monetary reimbursement, judgment is made by the judge against the defendant, as a personal attack. this case is strictly limited to a vehicle, and as such is an extended warranty case, and was defended as such. At issue.....having new motor, almost new transmission. Examination of the case; pg 6 line 3,4 Q. when did you purchase.....A. pg 6 line 5-10. It was in march of 91. Q. last year was 92 ma'am. Warranty evaluation is over 18+ months of personal ownership by the plaintiff of said vehicle. Judgment is based ; pg 76 line 2-6...statements of a qualified mechanic...! At issue: mechanics testimony pg 51 line 3-8 examined on nov 10, 92. representing a time lapse of 20 months (roughly) and several thousand miles and maintainance at the plaintiffs discretion. POINT OF FACT; the motor was not examined by any method which could be construed as adequate to determine the original condition of the motor, at its sale date. Even so no physical evidence of any kind, was presented. POINT OF FACT; the plaintiff testified that the motor was newly rebuilt pg 17 line 16-22 .....no ridge at the top...A. that's correct. By her mechanics own standard pg 52 line 10-16 ....condition of the cylinder walls .....ring wear.... POINT OF FACT; any motor can be destroyed within a few minutes (seconds) by a wide variety of reasons.
Examination of the case reveals: plaintiff did damage the engine herself pg 13, line 24, pg 15 line 10-12 pg 16 line 1-4 and pg 16 line 20-22. Defendant testifies pg 68 line 8-13. At issue; plaintiff states pg 16 line 13-19 ....hose....! Defendant testifies pg 68 line 14-22 she told me....hose had a knife slit ...half-inch long. POINT OF FACT; radiator hose was new at rebuild; ad reads, etc (new hoses, belts , wires & more). A manufacturers defect or tampering IS NOT my responsibility. pg 65 line 6-23. Examination of the case: defendant testifies as to threats pg 21 line 17 ....he had a gun....was present (judge quashes). At issue; was sufficient warranty coverage offered by defendant, pg 63 line 17-24 ....I did NOT guarantee it. pg 67 line 1-10 ...I gave her....pg 9 line 24.....he gave me $300....and 2 weeks later pg 9 line 4-17 ....defendant fixes vehicle. POINT OF FACT; damage inflicted by the plaintiff (running the car without coolant) described herein . VOIDS all GM new car warranties! AT ISSUE: must I , the defendant provide greater coverage than the industry standard? Examination of the case; pg 45 line 22-24 ....why did it take 18 months...pg 46 line 1-7 the court.....not pertinent! Substantive review: this is an extended warranty case, an evaluation of why an extension of time is warranted , IS necessary in such a case!
The court indicates BIAS AND PRE-JUDGMENT by demanding (time constraints are common in all warranty issues) are irrelevant. The only possible conclusion, the judge has already determined guilt, and pronounced judgment as fraud, PRIOR to the defendants testimony or his witness' testimony. That determination is based entirely on hearsay by the judges own words pg 36 line 1-9 ......right to do.....some of the rules....its only fair! Further evidence; of herasey used against the defendant pg 75 line 23-24 .....the witnesses who aren't hear....and pg 62 line 7-19. At issue: slander pg 75 line 19-22 even though the car was not warranted, every effort was made prior to sale, during sale, and after sale, to insure the plaintiff KNEW exactly what she was buying, pg 63 line 17-24. And did buy exactly what she was told with regard to the motor. pg 13 line 14-21. pg 60 line6-8. The court; any questions you want to ask him about his testimony ma'am? Plaintiff responds; NO sir. Testimony by defendant pg 61 line 5-16 (clearly indicates OPEN testimony NO attempt to conceal)! Defendant states: the existence of a problem with stated mileage and "actual mileage" on transmission was learned by the defendant NO sooner than; pg 59 of testimony and immediate methods ensued to correct that problem, testimony pg 61 line 8-16! Pg 61 line 7-8, (clearly indicate nothing to be gained by lying), when I, the defendant received that information pg 61, line 14-16!
POST TRIAL Motion by the defendant NOT even read pg 3 line 10-15 citation hearing; denial of supreme court proceedings, refusal to accept evidence pg 2 line 8-19 refused to acknowledge evidence received by judge , of supreme court trial sent days earlier! Pg 2 line 16-19 indicates evidence received, and simple legal trap ensued, set/ operated by judge, pg 2 line 21-22. At issue; does a trial proceeding through the court, in a civil case, have immunity from persecution or not? Post motion trial (stay) pg 2 line 21 $1500 cash bond....! Judgment was for $1290 total. Judge requires $210 MORE than judgment. At issue ; is the requirement of more than judgment; tyranny pg 3 line 6-11? I am forced to provide a vehicle for 18 months FOR FREE, and then pay her, interest on my money.
An examination of the appellate case from the order #4-93-0441 derived from ; letter dated 8/26/93 appellate court, to counsel: ... At issue; show cause on or before 9/2/93. Examined; mailing time (one) day, receipt of letter 8/27/93 (Friday at the earliest). I received on Saturday morning 8/28/03. Leaving Sunday a religious day and 3 and a half possible working days, (1) more day for return mail. The result JUSTICE is dependant upon formal knowledge of rule 342 & 343 existed. Justice would be dismissed within 3 and a half working days, after notice is received, based upon "rule 342 & 343, if not complied to". An examination of rule 342; appendix to the brief, shall include a copy of the judgment.....notice of appeal, and a complete table of contents....(1) the nature of each document (2) in case of ....date of filing (3) the names... An examination of rule 343; times for filing and servicing briefs; (a) time appellant shall file within 35 days....(c) extending or shortening time.....amended 9/1/74. Il supreme court....when the appellant fails to file brief when due .....dismissed....unless within 14 days of the entry date of that order, the appellant...! At issue, IS JUSTICE; from the dictionary; the quality of being just (correct), impartial (without prejudice), or fair (concerned with equality and right)? NO dissention is made as to the need for all pertinent materials. However the issue is raised: I, the appellant, came to court expecting FAIR, IMPARTIAL, and JUST consideration of a conflict with the appellee, and instead am required to confront, rather than receive instruction; discrimination is the result. Reliance was made upon a reasonable relationship between due process and a PROPER PURPOSE. This complaint directs the court to; BIAS against the poor or those who lack a formal legal education. Rule 342 & 343 were complied with within the time limit. An examination of the order 9/2/93 appellate court, appeal dismissed: in response to a rule.....the document does not comply with supreme court rules 341 -344 concerning form and content of briefs, the manner of filing, and the number of copies......also fails to provide citations to any authority... (a LIE) ...coherent factual background, understandable by the common citizen was provided! ....violates rule 341 (e) (7) ...... In view of the substantial failure of appellant to comply with supreme court rules concerning FORM & CONTENT.....dismissed!
AT ISSUE: when did justice or law become a supreme court rule?
An examination of: the notice of an appeal filed may 20, 93 and its subsequent brief mailed sept 1, 93 (one day, before judgment occurred) SHALL PROVE substantial compliance with rule 341 (e) (7). This complaint directs the court to: A MOCK TRIAL!
A RULE IS NOT A LAW.
A RULE DOES NOT ESTABLISH JUSTICE in this case
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT HAVE BEEN ATTACKED.
An examination of judicial inquiry board nov 23, 93 Information......meets one day each month....has only limited authority...."cannot intervene, review....take action against....has no jurisdiction....cannot discuss...will not engage in debate...publicly".
The many grievances.....a complaint of a single instance....but subsequent complaints of the same nature against the same judge may ultimately call for board action....intangible benefit.
This complaint directs the court to: FAILURE of the state not only to provide justice, but to provide an adequate method for intervention and removal. The court is further reminded, each citizen is admonished to bear true faith and allegiance to support and defend the consitution and the laws of the United States. At issue: DEFINE? Does this judiciary comply?
An examination of supreme court case 76128 petition for leave to appeal, denied. Dated 12/1/93: mandate issued to the appellate court 12/23/93 NO cause, NO reason, NO law, NO appeal within the state of IL. No appeal within the state of Il authority. (provides, definition of tyranny). Within supreme court documents case 76128 is: the demand "show me the legislative law, and DEFEND the judicial supposition that a supreme court rule is greater than the law". Within supreme court documents; questions involving constitutional RIGHT to due process; supported within the trial by reproducible evidence, as well as trial documentation, and judicial misconduct. Within supreme court documents; record of a judge who exceeded his authority, record of a judge who committed slander, and a complete failure to stay within the boundaries of law! Within supreme court documents; a reminder of judicial duty, conscience, and constitutional mandate! An oral contract with the court dismissed, and the question ; IS LAW THE AUTHORITY, or has the judge discarded law and become a tyrant?
Formally noted: I, James F. Osterbur do defend: my name and my life, within this case; as fraud is a single word for liar & thief! My life, and my name are IMPORTANT POSSESSIONS to me! This case denied due process to me, in that no mention of fraud was made until the judgment. Had I been informed, the trial would have been conducted differently, even so it was the judge NOT the plaintiff who accused me! The appellate court, cast doubt: are they protecting the judge or the citizen? The Il supreme court received documentation case 76128 and issued a one word statement; "denied". An examination of this type of arbitrary court reveals:
THE COURT IS UNABLE TO DEFEND ITS ACTION!
THE COURT IS UNWILLING TO RELY UPON LAW!
THE COURT HAS TAKEN FOR ITSELF EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE!
THE COURT PROTECTS ITSELF, NOT THE PUBLIC!
THE COURT DOES NOT BELIEVE, the common public citizen is its governing body!
THE COURT HAS OVERRULED THE LEGISLATURE, and EXECUTIVE BRANCH and made its own rules superior to justice or law!
The reality of living: JUSTICE, is greater than law, and law if greater than rule, IS DENIED!
At issue: ..."citations of supporting authority..." Within the initial, notice of appeal filed 5/20/93. Citations of the INDUSTRY STANDARD are made ( again this case is about a car). Clear reference is made of lack of due process 1st pg. Testimony identifying specific evidence plaintiff received what the defendant sold pg 2. Specific contract issues identified which were discarded. proper and reasonable evidence stating defendants character pg 5. And considerable proof provided. Within the brief 9/1/93 Identification of CLEAR, IMPROPER and BIASED , and illegal procedure by the judge! A failure to identify these realities coupled with the clear desire, by the appellate court, to "get rid of" this case without cause, can only lead to the conclusion: "protection of another member of "the profession", MORE IMPORTANT" than, justice to the common citizen". The reality of even the smallest indication of truth, to the above statement, DEFINES PLUNDERING OF CONSITUTIONAL DECREES AND MANDATES, within the judicial system of the state of Ill has occurred!
Those decrees in part are; Declaration of Independence/ the virginia bill of rights, adopted June 12, 1776/ the constitution of the United States/ the Illinois constitution/ the code of ethics/ oath of office / And the honor bestowed upon the office of judge, by the government which is THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
Justice asks the question: who deserves the final authority among men/ women? The supreme court has declared: "they are the final authority"! The consititution differs with this statement, establishing "the government as a whole", has the final authority. the government is the people. Therefore the only conclusion that can be substantiated is the PEOPLE ARE the final authority. Having established authority through democracy (one person, one vote) comes the question: what authority, and how is it to be established? The foundation of the US constitution is its beginning: "WE THE PEOPLE...." All the remaining words go to simple organizational limits and responsibilities or to amendments (how to best describe the foundation words through legislature). In its day, when communication was difficult at best; this was the best government could do. ALL things change, communication is easy, the masses are educated, and the vote is organized and simple. With all due respect, the opportunity for the public to directly control is READY!
Our authority, "we the people" extends to whatever the masses can choose for themselves. These things are" the fundamental principles through which all other decisions are made! These things include: environmental compliance, the budget equation, freedoms that affect how, why, & who. "We the people" pay the bill, fight the war, protect ourselves and each other, THIS RIGHT IS OURS! The establishment of this authority is "one person/ one vote" AFTER sufficient opportunity to hear and decide! A footnote: fundamental rights or principles cannot be expressed, unless, the words and expressions are limited.
The definitions of those words and expressions: must conform to the public perception and therefore chosen by the public, by vote! Constitutional authority is granted for change, within the words "we the people....in order to form a more perfect union....and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.... AT ISSUE: the directive, "in order to form a more perfect union"... MUST be construed; to be an active (not dormant) passage, or mandate to the people, "we the people", (OURSELVES) to alter or re-invent government, when that government shall be found inadequate or contrary to the common benefit, protection, and security of the people (so says, the bill of rights, adopted June 12,1776 as a firm and coherent definition of ; WHY fight for this revolution?) This mandate is further declared: a declaration July 4, 1776; ".....to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.......institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness....." AT ISSUE; the purpose, "and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Liberty as defined; the power to be free. This power is founded in government and is " the RIGHT TO CHOOSE!"
AT ISSUE; ownership, "...do ordain and establish this constitution...." These words do not seek a intervention, or radical change rather, presentation and qualification as is necessary to democratic (one person, one vote) change! Democratic (by the people) change, WILL FUNCTION CORRECTLY! The reality involved, requires more than majority rule, it is hereby suggested adequate representation is determined by NO less than 70% in favor (the issue arises again at ______years). NO less than 80% (the issue arises again at ______years). NO less than 90% (the issues arises again at , ________years)! Preliminary voting determines a single description, the vote is yes or no, ( preliminary voting means, by the people). It cannot be democratic unless: fundamental principles/ fundamental restraints/ the right of choice/ and a reliance upon. Determinations must be: capable of reaching every man/ woman!
FORCED TO CONFRONT: issue is now taken: "with the use of a foreign language in the midst of free access to legal information". The case Miranda v. Arizona clearly established the right to be properly informed (fraud is a criminal charge)! In a language that is understood. AT ISSUE; must I study a foreign language (NOT the language, commonly stated, the language of the land) to obtain justice. It is hereby stated, I have been to all available legal assistance (lawyers), available in this area, NONE have been helpful. I, further do state, I cannot afford the stated price of lawyers at this locale. Therefore I am confronted by: language barriers NOT suited to justice for the common man/ woman! NO possibility is allowed for arguments involving a
"Dead language". ALL language is interpreted and thereby the same. Consequently the use of a foreign language must be concluded as "went beyond congressional, constitutional, or judicial power, to impose, the secrecy; Or secret society upon the public of a language NOT their own! AT ISSUE: the DISRESPECT evident: "within the appellate court order 9/2/93 "in view ....substantial failure...to comply....concerning form & content of brief....dismissed...." For the common citizen. the result of which is CONTEMPT for that citizen, "a lack of respect". The broader issue: what contitutes "substantial failure"? For the public; when the issues and action relevant to the understanding of time and circumstance are fully disclosed, in such a way, as the average jury, could easily understand; THEN the judge must understand, or give up his/ her position!
POINT OF FACT: these words are the essence and foundation of a jury trial! And a basic fundamental of democratic rule! The distinction is ; authority versus power. The test presented, is then; does the court system of ILL exert proper authority (as demanded by the constitution and its people) or does the court system proclaim power over the people ( which is tyranny)?
CITATIONS
schechter poultry corp v. United states 295 US 495
question involves "codes of fair competition".
Chief justice Hughes ......extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power....powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extra constitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the tenth amendment- "the powers not delegated .....to the people".
APPLIED TO; the issue of foreign language, or writings that constitute a "foreign language" for the majority. AT ISSUE do the people know the law, or has the court HIDDEN the law? (From the majority). The broader ISSUE; "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" IS tyranny, IF, that law was hidden or the majority could not readily describe such restraint as necessary and logical. The issues of RIGHT TO KNOW, exceed issues represented by could/ should have known!
Marbury v. Madison 1 cranch 137
question involves; right to a commission and subsequent jurisdiction issues.
Chief justice Marshall: the first object of inquiry is- has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2 ...second inquiry; which is: if he has a right ....do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
AS APPLIED TO the question: IS constittutional doctrine sufficiently broad (we the people.....in order to form a more perfect union...) To allow the public citizen, opportunity to be informed, and then the right to vote personally (one person, one vote) on the broad/ basic issues, through mass communication, rather than, to vote for someone to vote for me/ us? AT ISSUE ; bring the major issue to me (the public citizen) that I may vote MYSELF!
Chief justice Marshall: that the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole american fabric has been erected... The judicial power of the united states is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say, that in using it, the constitution should not be looked into?
EXAMINED IN DETAIL; the issue represented is a simple one; who holds the greater power, the people (as a vast majority) or the "government"? 2. Has communication, education, and the means to obtain an accurate vote, become sufficient for true democracy (majority rule) or not? The fundamental issue becomes; are the american people ready, and are the american people able, to control their destiny by voting on the important issues themselves!
Gibbons v. Ogden 9 wheat 1 6 L. ED 23
a case involving exclusive privilege
Chief justice Marshall: ".....as men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule, that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction...."
EXAMINED WITHIN: "Let me vote for the issues myself". The (judges') words ..."employed words in their natural sense........"may be assumed as a living entitlement, justifying a further escape from the bonds of servitude (where other men/ women control) to a truer democracy, where one person/ one vote decides, within well-defined borders of EQUALITY, HONESTY, AND RIGHT, such as a written constitution provides. To those concerned, the constitution was written and provided by revolutionaries. But the words are NOT revolutionary, they are rather a fulfillment, of the ideals; as best men/ women of this day, can make them.
THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE: who best protects and honors the decreed constitutional (majority rule) mandates, requirements, and rights? The people or representatives of the people?
EXAMINED IN DETAIL; the issue represented is MAJOR realities which shall invade the public domain such as: Where the money is spent/ environmental compliance/ social experimentation/ distinct personal rights/ "boundary markers" whereby government employees/ officials are, FIRED and PENALIZED! ETC!!!!
THE TEST is then; do the american people have a legal right to ask; let us have our vote, and as a consequence determine the major influences that are to be a part of our lives?
THE TEST EXAMINED; YES, WE DO! Means a clear and distinct opportunity for discussion shall be proved by government, resulting in a populace vote to decide, IF WE WANT TO, obtain and use such an opportunity as this. the construction of such a test as this requires a clear and distinct constitutional declaration and as such, falls within the judicial power!
CONTROVERSY established; history suggests, every attempt to alter the current power, political, judicial or otherwise will be met with resistence. The controversy begins with the legal determination or validity, to do otherwise would be to discredit a system that has brought the american people this far (there is no intention to do so). Once the legal constitutional decisions as provided within, "the powers not delegated ....nor prohibited by it are reserved.....to the people."
AT ISSUE; "the powers not delegated". Examined at "its own test"; from
CITATION
Martin [Fairfax's Devisee] v. Hunters' lessee 1 wheat 304
a case of state court v. Constitutional powers
Justice Story; .........preamble of the constitution declares, by "the people of the United States" . There can be no doubt, that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and .....on the other hand, this instrument, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms; and where a power is expressly given, in general terms, it is not to be restrained to particular cases, unless that construction grows out of context, expressly, or by necessary implication. The words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and NOT in a sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged. The constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did not suit the purposes of the people in framing this great charter of OUR LIBERTIES, to provide for minute specifications of its powers, OR TO DECLARE THE MEANS BY WHICH THOSE POWERS SHOULD BE CARRIED INTO EXECUTION.......It could not be foreseen, what new changes and modifications of power might be indispensable to effectuate the general objects of the charter; restrictions and specifications, which at present, might seem salutary,......the public interests, should require,....."this constitution..... it is the case, then, and not the court, that gives the jurisdiction.
Osborn v. Bank of the united states 9 wheat 738
Jurisdictional question enlarged.
Chief Justice Marshall: "That the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution...." This clause enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting on it....asserts his rights.....
THE QUESTION; "Has an injury occurred"? The study of cases 92-s-2991/ gen 4-93-0441/ supreme 76128 shall confirm an injury has occurred. Further stated; the massive debt of government is a public / personal injury. lawlessness is a fact. And many more attempts for change, by the representatives of the people are public/ personal injuries. These are the injuries which call for the statements "let me/ us VOTE for the issues themselves"/ if I must pay, then let me/ us choose! This issue as stated does encompass public health and welfare.
West Coast hotel co. V. Parrish 300 US 379
a case of minimum responsibilities
Chief Justice Hughes: ........it speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty....liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the people. Liberty under the constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process. This essential limitation of liberty in general governs freedom of contract in particular....fourteenth amendment had been broadly described. \
EXAMINED, as a contract; the representatives of the people, being duly elected, have a contract granted; that a minimum or better level of economic, civil, police, and military shall be maintained. The distinct realities of DEBT as a nation, and other area's HAVE NOT been maintained at minimal levels. Within the personal case; (I am not communist)
DeJonge V. Oregon 299 US 353
Chief Justice Hughes: ......conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process...[.this public case based upon "a change is needed"] Chief Justice Hughes: ....safeguarding the community... more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to that end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.
Minersville school district V. Gobitis 310 US 586
a case of "conflicting claims of liberty and authority"
Mr. Justice Frankfurter:......except where the transgression of constitutional liberty is too plain for argument , personal freedom is best maintained so long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed when it is ingrained in a peoples' habits and not enforced against popular policy by the coercion of adjudicated law.
Mr. Justice Stone;......the constitution.....it is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey, if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free government can exist.
Euclid V. Ambler reality co. 272 US 365
a case about changing conditions
Mr Justice Sutherland: ......" while the meaning of constitutional guarantee never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise......"
IN CONCLUSION; our guarantee, that those words which , WE the American people accept as valid, for protecting, supporting, and submitting to, have been HARASSED by misinterpretation, and outright denial! My own case examines the obstruction to justice, and the myriad obstacles, that constitutional doctrines and the people who made them demand, this should never be.
The Declaration of Independence says it best: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of HAPPINESS....and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
The common remark, "what can I do"? Becomes the common DEMAND: administer justice or relinquish the right or you will be replaced! The vast majority are the government. Within court decisions that are common, is the reality, the court wishes and does; "make an example" out of individual cases. There is perhaps NO greater denial of justice, than this. WE ARE EQUAL, to make anyone pay one penny, or one minute, more than justice allows is ABSOLUTE TYRANNY. Each is to pay for their own crime, NOT someone elses'. This is CORRUPTION and its purpose is to destroy the foundation of democracy which is: WE ARE EACH ONE, EQUAL AND FREE! Unfortunately, reality requires that rights and liberties must be fought for. In this country, at this time, we as a people NEED to examine our constitution and our rights and "clean house"! NOTHING works better than turning on the lights, opening the doors, and being truthful about whatever we find! REMEMBER WE the people, (vast majority) ARE THE LAW (By vote, and within the constitutional documents)
SUMMATION of the personal case: It is my distinct opinion the car was either damaged when badly overheated by the plaintiff (possibly causing a bearing race to slip) or was tampered with. Neither is my fault! It is my desire to be fair in literal terms. Being fair means being fair to me, as well!
AN ITINERARY OF BIAS Case 92-s-2991 presiding judge harry e. clem
This case is well documented through "the notice of an appeal filed may 20,93/ the appellate court documents filed sept 1, 93/ and the prayer for leave to appeal filed at the state supreme court, docketed and awaiting session". Area's not fully defined; why wasn't the lawsuit filed when the car allegedly quit". Plaintiff states again: this case was presented as an extended warranty case : NOTHING ELSE. No warranty; if issued, would have expired and clearly indicates in court, the same, pg 71 trial transcript 4/21/93 line 10 Q; are you a certified mechanic? This question goes to the quality of work and in no possible way suggests the work was not done. The issue of warranty was denied: "the motor was notably leaking yet the plaintiff drove it 15 miles farther". The judge directs this order by placing his hand over the microphone and orders the defendant not to pursue, or the fact that money was accepted.
Defendants motion was dismissed without reading: even though the motion clearly indicates an oral contract was initiated and was accepted by Ms. Cole. Hearing on citation pg 2 line 1-21 confrontation is evident; supremacy of the state supreme court is denied. Refusal to acknowledge evidence sent prior to citation hearing. Refusal to acknowledge presented by the defendant in court. Refusal to allow defendant testimony as allowed by the rules of a motion trial, judge elects to proceed. Failure to follow standard procedure identified above indicates, "illegal search and seizure and a violation of privacy laws. Motion hearing to stop judgment clearly defines prejudice pg 2 line 20,21. a cash bond of $1500 required, Judgment in this case was $1290 total. Yet I am required to post $210 more than I am at risk to lose is this fair? Or having already examined me, is this another indication of prejudice for the plaintiff
The appellate court shall be dealt with through issues raised at the state supreme court gen 4-93-0441, now 76128 and state supreme court gen #4-93-0839 just sent. NOTED; and hereby testified to, the ad in question which was NOT read until the court issued its statement pg 72 line 3-7 [read pg 74 line 15,16] WAS NOT the ad placed over the phone by the defendant. The defendants ad should have read, (was dictated as) "newly rebuilt motor, recently rebuilt transmission, cv joints, and front brakes, etc." Upon seeing the ad in print the paper was notified by phone to change the ad (correct it) but I mentioned the car sold and they did not do it (change the ad). It is suspected the receptionist tried to save me some expense, even though I told her it was important. This ad sheet is produced once a week, I did not see the ad until nearly a week later and called at that point. James F. Osterbur
NOTED; and hereby testified to, the mechanics testimony of 20 months after the fact was expected to be heard as "20 months after the fact" and several thousand miles usage." That fact limited examination by the defendant to relevant issues, NOT heresy . It is common practice to rebuild this GM motor with its original head bolts. James F. Ostebur
NOTED; and hereby testified to, judge uses illegal procedure pg 57 after order to stricken, microphone noise exists on tape (places hand over it, orders "NO warranty or money paid issues". Defendant states DID interfere with cross-examination, a defendants right. James F. Osterbur
NOTED: and hereby testified to: this was an extended warranty case ANY notable indication that the term fraud, could or would possibly be used would have resulted in the defendant bringing live witness's to verify; rebuilding took place! There was NONE, as the common citizen might perceive James F. Osterbur
A simple summary A dispute involving a car purchase 18 months prior to summons. summons & plaintiff declare warranty issue; judge changes to fraud issue returns full price of car (plus the $300 already paid).
Post trial motion indicates basic interaction "she could have anything she asked for"/ defendants motion NOT read, questioned ; "Judge says; want justice get a lawyer"!
Citation hearing refuses evidence or testimony from defendant/ post trial motion to stop judgment allowed but forced to put up $210 more than judgment.
CITATIONS USED HEREIN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
section 2 due process and equal protection; no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.
section 6. searches, seizures, privacy and interceptions; the people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or ......
Section 12 RIGHT to remedy and justice; Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly.
CL.3 OATH OF OFFICE, ETC ART 6 Note 8 REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY OATH ....... The first duty assumed by each judge under his oath of office is to support the federal and state constitutions;....the court of necessity enforce the constitution . State v. Jud first nat'l bank 202 NW 391
Commentary THE JUDICIARY, John R. Schmidhauser The judiciary as evolved in the western legal tradition is often described as an institution that resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures......the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibility for safeguarding economic rights, such as contract or property, and protecting noneconomic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion......These attributes contain fundamental components of the ideal conception of a judiciary......issues involving corrupt use of the legal system and the arrogant manner.......
JANOSIK ENCYCLOPEDIA of the American judicial system II KF 154. E 53 1987 V2 COMMON LAW AND COMMON -LAW LEGAL SYSTEMS; source and form of American law. ....the founding fathers. They insisted on a constitution that would be the highest and most fundamental source of American law, and that constitution was reduced to clear writing- a legal document- the authority of which derived not from ancient custom, but from its ratification and acceptance by the people of the several states.... .....thus the famous call for a "sociological jurisprudence and later for legal realism".....shifting the emphasis of legal thought from traditional....called the "pedigree of rules".....to...balancing the interests at stake in lawsuits.......
OFFICIAL ILL COURTS COMMISSION REPORTS KFI 1725.5. D5..A5 1992
rules of procedure these are the rules applied to a judge/ ARE WE NOT
EQUAL IN COURT
rule 3 ......SHALL advise.....of his right to file responsive pleading to the charges not less than twenty one days after service of notice upon him......
Rule 5 ....twenty one days.....pleadings. They shall be in ordinary, plain, and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him.
rule 11 the process and procedure.....shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be.....but the allegations of the complaint must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
Supreme court rules xx Section A; (4) a judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law,....
Court Rules PREAMBLE the practice of law is a public trust. Lawyers are the trustees of the system by which citizens resolve disputes....deter crime....by working to improve that system.....and by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it......
Fraud or fraudulent, denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprize another of relevant information.
RULE 2 (a) MISCONDUCT. Misconduct is behavior of an attorney which violates the ILL code of professional responsibility or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute.
RULE 61 a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
RULE 62 a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities (a) a judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.......public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges...
RULE 63 A judge should preform the duties of his office impartially and diligently A (1) a judge should be faithful to the law....
RULE 343 times for filing and serving briefs
RULE 344 number of copies, service, and form and method of reproduction of briefs and abstracts
92-s-2991 small claim complaint I ....in the sum of $1200 for ... a car, 82 buick skylark, sold, that was advertised as having new motor, almost new transmission, brakes, cv joints etc. This car lasted approximately 10 mo's . After 4 mo's motor (heads ) went bad, defendant came to fix it agreed it would need a new motor and gave $300 back, to go half on new motor. After defendant fixed heads, 2 months later motor quit, transmission went out and brakes are bad.
4-93-0441 appellate court/ "Appellant ruled to show cause, on or before 9.02/93, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file brief as required by rules 342 and 343. Failure to comply with these rules will result in dismissal of appeal."
ORDER; In response to a rule.......does not comply with rule 341 through 344 concerning the form and content of briefs, the manner of filing, and the number of copies.... also fails to provide citations....or a coherent factual background......in view of substantial failure.....dismissed for failure to comply with supreme court rules. 9/2/93
Judicial inquiry board; ...... The board has only limited authority......cannot intervene....review....take action against....has no jurisdiction...will not engage in debate.....the board ...does so by filing that complaint with the courts commission, ...the board then serves as prosecutor........is a very real, if intangible, benefit.
76128 state supreme court; DENIED
circuit clerk $1200 judgment money/ $90 court costs/ $72 interest (9% April- December) $1362 total 4/26/93
4/26/93 Motion for turnover of evidence
I believe the motor and transmission were tampered with. I clearly said so
during the trial. I told the plaintiff and her boyfriend, I would soon be
picking up the car and asked her where it was located (immediately) after the
trial. She told me it was located where she lived and made NO indication it
would be a problem. I went to a chemical engineer Ed Perkins at the U of I and
arranged for testing of oil residues on April 30, 93 his earliest date
available, and arranged for other services to pick up the car for me. On April
23 Friday the boyfriend calls and wants the money and is going to haul the car
away. I plainly tell him I will pay at the last legal day possible, 30 days
from the date, barring continuances and I will be picking up the car on April
30, 93. and clearly told he NO car, NO money! I NOW OWN that car, he complains,
says no. James F. Osterbur (The judge says to her, in court, its your car
do anything you like with it)
NOTICE OF AN APPEAL 92-s-2991
whereas; a judgment has been filed against the defendant, jim Osterbur, that shall be shown herein to be IMPROPER, BIASED, AND SLANDEROUS to said cause.
Beginning with the summons filed oct 2, 92; comes the claim for warranty evaluation, a summons follows nov 9, 92. SPECIFICALLY there is no mention of, "by factual statement" that I, jim Osterbur the defendant is / would be accused of fraud by the plaintiff. IN FACT, said plaintiff, NEVER accused myself, the defendant at any time by direct statement of fraud. It will be brought up later. Returning to the evidence; pg 6 line 3-10 the car was purchased in march of 91, over 18 months prior to her filing a complaint in Oct 92. Upon attempting questioning that applies to warranty pg 45,46 clearly define what I believe to be BIASED proceedings. The plaintiff testifies pg 10 line 6 and then line 8 she waited over 1 year after the decision to take me, the defendant to court, has been made line 18. the question remains why? Plaintiff gives testimony regarding her decision to inflict damage to the motor (damaged; in such a way and manner that is EXCLUDED in all new car warranties) QUOTE: engine damage from running you engine without coolant isn't covered by your warranty; 1992 General Motors Corp.
Testimony begins pg 15 line 10 SPECIFIC to this testimony is the question and answer, pg 16 line 19-22, and pg 16 line 1,2. Testimony continues pg 17 line 4-14 discredits plaintiffs selection of mechanical advise. Testimony pg 17 lines 13-24 clearly show the motor specifically the cylinder walls were in "like new" condition. Further testimony such as pg 52 line 8-24, pg 53 line 1,2 are hereby declared null and void as they describe conditions that appear over 1 year (pg 10 line 6, then pg 51 line 8) later. Issues such as mileage were avoided within compliance to the court directive pg 46 line 6. Issues that affected "my decision" not to call the machinist to give testimony pg 62 line 7-11 are MONEY. to request travel time, failure to be at his work, WOULD cost money! Pg 19 line 5-9 clearly indicates, reimbursement is highly unlikely. Pg 62 lines 12-14 simply acknowledge close family as "seen by others" as not being impartial. Further; the law is CLEAR, regarding warranty issues. WARRANTY as defined by GM on rebuilt motors (their rebuilt motors) pg 56, line 24 is 12 months or 12000 miles whichever comes first. This alone according to law (in my opinion) was enough to cause dismissal of this case before trial occurred.
The trial was granted without a motion for dismissal because pg 21 line 15-18 indicates a weapon, specifically the threat of a weapon, coupled with an angry person pg 20, line 9-10 deserves to be incriminated in court, should foul play occur after a judgment against the plaintiff. Simple evidence is needed. Evidence continued; pg 64-67 define the defendants explanation of the events which lead to offering the plaintiff $300 for the specific purpose of finding someone else. By relieving any/ all obligation which could be attributed to me, as described by pg 67 line 1-5, and substantiates pg 21 line 8-9. Throughout the proceeding there can be NO doubt as to what the $300 was for, NOR that it was accepted within the CERTAIN knowledge of an agreement regarding motor replacement. Testimony pg 23 line 2-5, concur this was the agreement.
Beyond legal obligations: after paying $300 to alleviate my obligations without the proper and reasonable opportunity to evaluate the motor DUE ENTIRELY to the threatening manner of Richard Adair pg 29 line 9. I returned to again evaluate the car the second time Ms. cole called, pg 67 line 11. At this time a proper evaluation was made AFTER she informed me SHE HAD overheated the motor. The motor was fixed at NO charge except $50 in parts pg 17 line 13-14. pg 31 line 24, pg 32 line 1,2 state the prior mechanical description pg 17 line 6,7 was completely erroneous. Insofar as the issues regarding the transmission and brakes and cv joints are concerned, these things were the responsibility of the owner to divulge correctly. The information I, Jim Osterbur passed along was given to me by the owner's dad/ retired bishop Ehme Osterbur, and I had NO reason to discount that information. Pg 59 does prove the work was done, I am unaware of specifics, "involving the word, recently". Regarding the testimony of Danny Osterbur pg 59 line 20-21 USE of the words, "imagine & probably", further define problems with recently. Pg 61 line 7-16 describe in part how the car was delivered to me. It was "too good a car to just throw away, the transmission was recently rebuilt, and the brakes and the cv joints were replaced, do anything you wish with the car". I elected to rebuild the motor and charged Ms, Cole accordingly. The price is higher that an autozone motor because more work was done to it. I do at this time point out, the first and only reference to transmission or brake mileage appears pg 59 line 21. Ms. Cole is given the opportunity to ask questions pg 60 line 6 and declines, pg 60 line 8. I, the defendant did willfully introduce the problem with mileage that arose regarding the transmission and brakes, fully expecting the judge could & would add/ hear the difference. It was NOT an oversight on my part, rather upon hearing a change, in the story given me, and desiring truth and fair play, I expected to pay a reasonable sum, because of the 20,000 mile difference. To ms cole as what I, had told her was apparently incorrect. pg 61 line 8-15.
Irregardless of actual mileage, I, had personally inspected the car before and after working on the motor to assure myself the transmission and brakes, etc were sound, they were. After fixing the head gasket, I test drove the car to assure myself the motor, transmission, and brakes were in good working order, they were! The beginning of problems was a cut in a new radiator hose pg 63 line 3 and pg 68 line 15-18. PROOF the motor was rebuilt was clearly shown to the plaintiff, pg 69 line 5-15 and again pg 17 line 18-22. PROOF the transmission and brakes were rebuilt, was provided pg 59 line 22-24. PROOF of the exclusion of warranty rights was defined by the dates provided by Ms cole (bought mar 91, summons appears oct 92) a full 18 months after the car was purchased. PROOF a willingness existed on the part of the defendant to provide assistance to the plaintiff upon being notified pg 20 line 9-18 not once, but twice. PROOF the motor was overheated by the plaintiff pg 15 line 10-24, pg 16 line 1-22. PROOF not every mechanics evaluation is correct pg 17 line 9-22. PROOF the desire to control the defendant existed, pg 30 line 4-8. PROOF the defendants mechanical abilities exceeded that of the mechanics computerized list pg 31 line 24, pg 32 line 1,2 as seen within testimony pg 17 line 3-22. PROOF greed was NOT involved in the sale of this car pg 14, line 2-8. PROOF the plaintiff made her own decision and had plenty of opportunity to seek her boyfriends advice or others pg 13 line 14-24. PROOF the plaintiff (her boyfriend) made NO attempt to deal respectfully with the defendant pg 20 line 14-24 pg 21 line 1,2 . PROOF a transaction occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant specifically about the motor. pg 22 line 14-24, (line 24 clearly indicates the extent of the work, although a question raised, was answered pg 72 line 18-21. PROOF the mechanics testimony is irrelevant pg 51 line 1-7 as it clearly indicates inspection occurred 20 months after the car was bought. PROOF an agreement by their mechanic that motors can be destroyed easily pg 52 line7,8, and substantiates the defendants claim to have rebuilt the motor pg 52 line 24 and pg 53 line 1. When properly viewed within the plaintiffs own testimony pg 17 line 19-22. PROOF nothing was hidden by the defendant pg 17 line 15-16. PROOF warranty examination was quashed by the judge, long before testimony by my witness or myself pg 45 line 21-24, pg 46 line 1-7.
Evidence of BIAS pg 19 line 21-24, pg 20 line 1-3 "if there's' something about this incident that involves mr adair, that you think is pertinent you may bring it out". Attempts were made to solicit this testimony pg 19 line 10-16 pg 20,21 line 1-10 (judge quashes every attempt) Direct testimony by the defendant: spelling out pg 21 for the judge involvement by mr. adair, and later as a direct negotiator pg 30, line 4-8. pg 21 line 21-24, pg 22 line 1-12. Every effort to portray the incident as confrontational and thereby a direct result of a preset agenda, described by mr. adair, pg 30 line 6,7. Judge quashes pg 21, line 20-24, pg 22 line 1-12. Defendant declares: all reasonable efforts were made to obtain a fair and satisfactory agreement pg 21 line 11-12. Judge ignores: relevant testimony regarding stated efforts to obtain a fair & satisfactory agreement above pg 21 line 21-24 . Judge declares pg 22 line 8-11. relevant testimony given pg 22 line 15-24 , pg 23 line 1-13. Relevant testimony denied: pg 21 line 21-24 and pg 22 lines 1-12 attempts were being directed toward the inclusion of motive, as to the suspected tampering pg 71 line 1,2. Denial of testimony pg 44 line 4-6 pertinent within the context of motive, tampering and so forth. Denied by judge pg 44 line 14-24 , pg 45 line 1-3. Judge quashes: question specific to warranty issues pg 45 line 22-24, 46 line 1-3 . Defendant asks for a definition pg 46 lines 4,5. Judge enters first judgment in case against defendant pg 46 line 6,7. Evidence of irrelevant testimony: pg 51 line 8 due to inspection occurring 20 months after sale. Substantiation of irrelevant testimony pg 56 line 22 -24. Testimony of closure by defendant pg 67 line 1-6 . Testimony of evidence to tampering pg 68 line 15-22. PROVEN testimony as to the condition of the cylinder walls by defendant pg 69 line 6-16 substantiated by the plaintiff pg 17 line 13-22 as of this date pg 10 line 6,7. pg 10 line 6-7. Testimony regarding further tampering pg 69 line 17-24. Defendants summation pg 70 lines 4-10. Testimony every effort was made to produce a proper repair for the plaintiff in her presence pg 70 line 11-23.
The courts decision pg 73 line 13-20. It was the written opinion of the court, that the motor could be considered as evidence 20 months after purchase, to its inspection date.
(Rebuttal) It is the defendant claim: 20 months after the fact, is too long: therefore testimony by the mechanic in question must be stricken! It is a legal fact: warranties of any kind DO have expiration dates! Therefore the defendant does assert it was unnecessary to incur expense or subpoena witnesses to testify to/ against ILLEGAL testimony. Rather receipts and affidavits CLEARLY were enough!
The courts decision pg 74
Rebuttal: the issue of FRAUD was NEVER brought up during the trial. The defendant asserts: I was never accused by the plaintiff!
Courts decision pg 74 line 10-11
Rebuttal: initial damages were dealt with during trial pg 15 line 10-24, pg 16 line 1-22.
Courts decision pg 74 line 18-20
Rebuttal: the term new motor is interchangeable within the context of a 9 year old car with complete rebuild (to OEM SPECS.). Defendants description pg 71 line 18-24, pg 72 line 1,2.
Courts decision
Rebuttal: the evidence surrounding this decision/ portion of was clearly voluntary by the defendant and was expressed to provide opportunity of reasonable reimbursement because of/ as soon as: the defendant was made aware of a problem.
Courts decision: pg 75 line 14-22
Rebuttal: the defendant made NO false statements at any time! PROOF is in the voluntary and immediate and public statements that relate to the statements in question pg 59,60,61. The defendant asserts he did the best he could with the information at his disposal and sought to voluntarily make amends for misinformation from others. Be it known: the defendants cousin Danny Osterbur was called on at least 2 occasions requesting any/ all receipts regarding said work. However Danny Osterbur was unable to produce the receipts until called to court, due to a change of residence which resulted in lost bookkeeping.
Courts decision;
Rebuttal: relies heavily on testimony of a mechanic who had NOT inspected the car prior to 20 months after purchase was made! Pg 76 line 1-8
courts decision pg 76 line 9-21
Rebuttal: ALL testimony directed or given by the defendant is disregarded.
Docket entry:
Rebuttal: JUDGE ALLOWS 20 MONTHS FREE USE AND ABUSE OF SAID VEHICLE
by the plaintiff. (And gives her the car)
Motion denied, pg 3 line 13-15 without even reading the motion!
SUMMARY by defendant
Evidence exists regarding possible motive involved with tampering. Evidence was quashed by judge prior to it becoming testimony. HARD evidence as well as mileage may yet exist within the mechanical components of said car. Judge REFUSED to hand over a car which he had required the defendant to repurchase. A car which may hold all the evidence necessary to prove the defendant CORRECT beyond any doubt. Judge defends actions by saying "motion pg 3 line 24, pg 4 line 1-5". Because of the length of time the car was in the possession of the plaintiff, the defendant claims: there was never a reason to believe it would be necessary to obtain further proof beyond: Warranty limits, as established by new car dealerships!/ REPAYMENT as established by the motor agreement between plaintiff and defendant/ warranty exclusion as established by new car warranty guidelines (plaintiff overheating car, drives fifteen miles further)/ NO mechanical descriptions within warranty periods established as common, except for pg 17 line 4-12, which was DISPROVED pg 17 line 13-24, pg 31 line 24, pg 32 line1,2. NO PROOF EXISTS that the defendant made knowingly false statements to the plaintiff.
WHEREAS; the verdict rendered by judge harry e. clem SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL & VOID By the defendant James F. Osterbur 5/20/93
ITEM #74 STATE SUPREME COURT 76450
TRANSCRIBED FROM THE HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENTS, EXPECTED TO BE SUFFICIENTLY CORRECT/ ANY DOUBTS WOULD BE CAUSE TO REQUEST COPIES FROM THE COURT.
IL SUPREME COURT CASE # 76450
An appeal of appellate case #4-93-0847
Originating according to Champaign county # 92-c-1222
A prayer for leave to appeal (terms used to eliminate any excuses)
Appeal dismissed without comment Nov. 5, 1993
I, James F. Osterbur do seek leave to appeal the dismissal entered against me on the following grounds:
Taken from, "official ill courts commission reports KFI 1725.5 .D5 A5 1992
rules of procedure, "rule 5...file responsive pleadings...pleading. "They shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him." RULE 11: the process and procedure before the commission shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be...but the allegations of the complaint must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. RULE 3: shall advise ...of his right to file responsive pleadings to the charges NOT LESS than twenty one (21) days after service of notice upon him...." Taken from the "oath of office, etc art 6 CL.3 note 4.8. requirements imposed by oath: under constitutional requirement that all members of the legislature and all executive and judicial officers of the several states shall take an oath to support the constitution, the constitution alone, as it is written, is the sole test, and support of an act of congress or any law promulgated by any other federal official or any court decision is NOT required.... The first duty assumed by each judge under his oath of office is to support the federal and state constitutions; hence if in any cause presented to a court one of the parties invokes a provision of statutory law, and the other party invokes a provision of the constitution, and there is a clear repugnance between the two, so that one cannot be enforced without doing violence to the other, the court MUST of necessity enforce the constitution.... Taken from "judicial conduct and ethics; shaman, lubet, alfin KF 8779.s47 1990 page 400,401 13.09 procedural due process rights...." The fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Application...a two step analysis: first it must be determined if governmental action (judicial action, in my case) affects an interest in life, liberty, or property; an.....". Property interests protected by procedural due process extend beyond actual possessory rights....a unilateral expectation of a benefit..., but where a state has acted in such a way so as to create an objective, reasonable expectation of a benefit,....a property interest will be recognized. "Liberty denotes an individual's interest in the enjoyment of privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free persons. Where an individual's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of governmental action, some procedural protections are essential...." From "judicial conduct and ethics" page 32 2.04 toward litigants ......disciplinary bodies however have generally been sensitive to the fact that a nonlawyer litigant is somewhat more vulnerable...the supreme court of Florida stated: "we take this opportunity to remind ourselves as judges that TYRANNY is nothing more that ill-used power...." A new york court.....stating that a judge, "MUST lean over backward and err on the side of making sure that he does not intimidate the parties from pursing legitimate claims...." "A judge who is impatient with a litigant runs the risk of violating the canon 3 (4) duty to accord the litigant "full right to be heard..." taken from "judicial conduct and ethics" pages 529-537 model code of judicial conduct 1990" from preamble; "our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us....as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system...." Canon 1 commentary deference to the judgements and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity.....although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law,.... public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. Canon 2 A. a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Commentary: public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges....." Canon 3 A.........duties include all the duties of the judges' office prescribed by law...." (B) read 1,2,4,5,& 7 #4 commentary; the duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience...." (5) commentary; "a judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute....." (7) a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons' lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. At issue herein: define law and right?
Taken from "Janosik, encyclopedia of the american judicial system 2 KF 154.E53 V.2 1987 "common law and common-law legal systems pages 511-512 source and form of american law.......founding fathers. They insisted on a constitution that would be the highest and most fundamental source of american law; and that constitution was reduced to clear writing, a legal document , the authority of which derived not from ancient custom, but from its ratification and acceptance by the people of the several states. "....the reformers, or many of them thus urged a totally new and conceptually alien approach to law: they urged judges to give more attention to the "real" (NOT merely the legal) interests at stake in such controversies and to weigh the social consequences of their decisions rather than mechanically following earlier cases. Thus the famous call for "sociological jurisprudence" and later for "legal realism". In time, these movements accomplished....by shifting the emphasis of legal thought from....preoccupation with what H.L.A. HART called the "pedigree of rules"....regarding all law, including judicial decisions, to be expressions of social policy, they believed judges should strive to reach decisions that would best further the goals of a free, democratic society..... the law....became a tool useful for building a better future. ......affirmatively seeking results that would have desirable future effects was a difference or more that mere words....the search for real interests at stake in litigation ....extend the parameters of lawsuits to include a whole host of extralegal considerations...."
To identify law, as applied to the american experience, the rules and objectives which were DIED FOR, are defined by the "declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. As it applies through law (the authority of which derived not from ancient custom but from its ratification and acceptance, BY THE PEOPLE of the several states "That all men are created EQUAL; deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed......Laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.....etc.
To identify RIGHT as applied to the american experience, the reality of what men & women chose, as important enough, to risk life, limb, and property to obtain is strictly and correctly defined by "the virginia bill of rights, adopted June 12, 1776. There are those who would suggest these two documents are less than the constitution itself, YET THE REALITY IS; there would be NO constitution (proposed September 17, 1787; after the war) without it. [clearly the law (declaration of Independence) and the right (virginia bill of rights) produced and instructed and BUILT the american government.]
The constitution and its intent, are framed and identified in its foundation: "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.
To identify constitutional merit or grounds, these 3 documents DO APPLY!
This case general # 4-93-0847 does present the following conflicts, economic rights, and principles! The primary points of contention restated, appellate case:
1. A monopoly exists
2. Failure to arbitrate, constitutes price fixing
3. Equality demanded in billing dispute
4. Section 2-622 of the state of il IS a violation of DUE PROCESS, and argued
5. A medical emergency does define a citizen in or as a HOSTAGE.
6. ADDRESSES THE LACK OF LAW
7. Duty acknowledged constitutionally
8. Fourteenth amendment argued
9. Constitution (preliminary argument)
10. Bill of rights argued.
11. Justice is a RESULT, NOT A RULE
12. Property involved
13. Monopoly exhibited
14. A public issue presented
15. Monopoly/price fixing established
16. Duty established
17. Constitution challenged; "does the judiciary have the right (authority) to resolve this issue?
Taken from "THE JUDICIARY, John R. Schmidhauser" the judiciary....is often described as an institution that resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures.... the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibility for safeguarding economic rights, such as contract or property, and protecting noneconomic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion....
18. Monopoly revisited
19. No legal recourse
20. Section 2-622 ill state law is a MONOPOLY given by th state to the medical industry/ unconstitutional.
21. Rights
22. Pain, then harassment, possible extortion
23 legal agreement analyzed
24. Illegal issue
25. Constitutional guidelines acknowledged
26. Precedent is constitution & bill of rights
27. Call for justice
28. Right of counsel
29. Constitutional guidelines met
30. Must be dealt with
the appellate court has already declared these issues to be less than: supreme court rules 341-344, by its order entered Nov 5, 1993
This plaintiff demands adherence to the constitution, and the judicial oath of office, and equality. This plaintiff does freely admit the lack of sufficient money to pursue equality through the use of lawyers. This plaintiff adheres instead to the concepts and realities of duty and justice and reminds the judicial branch that obligations such as: mandatory induction into the military, mandatory taxes ( we pay, as taxpayers, for everything), mandatory reliance on politicians rather than voting for the issues ourselves. This plaintiff does freely admit the lack of formal legal instruction. This plaintiff adheres instead to the constitutional privilege, "to come to the seat of his government .....and to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, .....he has the right of free access to.....and its courts of justice." This plaintiff does expect, the rules of procedure from the ill courts commission as applied to judges shall also apply to the plaintiff: rule 5....pleadings they shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him. And rule 3.....shall advise the judge of his right to file responsive pleadings to the charges NOT LESS than 21 days after service of notice upon him.... and rule 11......the process and procedure ....shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be....
The evidence of bias exists within the dates: appeal dismissed entered Nov 5, 1993 motion sent Oct 28, 1993 Do I, the recipient of a formal court proceeding have 21 days or not? IS the failure to advise, clearly evident within the order of the court a violation of due process or not? Regarding a pre-trial conference requested by Mr. Krchak. A post-trial conference was held with defense attorney Mr. Cornyn immediately following trial 92-C-1222 whereat all the issues relevant at that time were discussed. The plaintiff and the defense, each, outlined what was or would be or could be offered to resolve. The defense left with a complete understanding of the plaintiffs position and offer, and returned no to the counter offer, leaving nothing further to be discussed. One pre-trial conference is enough!
The court contends, " a litigant appearing pro se....is obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel. This plaintiff expects those rules of procedure being rule 5 and rule 11 and easily and notably complies and responds in "Ordinary, plain and concise language...." and are "as simple and summary as reasonably may be...." The question develops: "is there one law for judges and another for the citizen or are we equal under law?"
The definition of coherent: "sticking together, consistent". I, James F. Osterbur DO believe, the words and efforts for fair and justifiable, legal arbitration, are not only consistent BUT MY RIGHT as a citizen under the U.S. constitution. The question develops: "do I need money (for a lawyer) or must I have a legal education to obtain justice?"
I, James F. Osterbur, do believe justice, defined as RIGHT versus wrong IS a FUNDAMENTAL, not a monetary or educational concept, BUT is intended:......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". Mr right, to neutral arbitration AS AN EQUAL, Irregardless of my education or monetary means is established within these words. The court is reminded: the poor and less educated comprise a majority of the soldiers who died to give me this right! It shall be noted; the defendant received the pre-trial documents to case 92-C-1222 and recognized these documents (certified by the defendant). Page 2-3, motion to dismiss, #3. It shall also be noted this appellant finds no evidence within rules 341-344 requiring formal certification of the record. FOR THE RECORD: pre-trial documents presented DO; form a coherent realistic legal search for justice through the proper sequence of , first covenant medical center, then the lower court, then the motion court, then circuit court, and now appeals, which becomes this state supreme court case. Denial has been according to rule or lack of law, NOT constitutional decree to establish justice! Motion to dismiss pg 3 #5: the distinction is made pg 1 this is a landmark case, there are no distinct citations available. The authorities relied upon are self-evident; legal status regarding monopolies, price fixing, due process, the fourteenth amendment, the bill of rights, and the constitution. Are prevalent and sufficiently known, these ARE NOT obscure rules, but comprise everyday freedoms and rights and therefore: it is expected the attorney and/or judges which may be involved SHALL have a working knowledge of these fundamentals! The word BRIEF: (definition; a synopsis/ of short duration) agrees with this concept! Motion to dismiss pg 3, #6: appellants brief pg 10 lines 13-16; "an amended trial is sought...." and defined pg A-1 to A23. Motion to dismiss pg 3 # 7: the issues pg 1 line 10 does a monopoly exist is medicine? Line 14-16 does failure to arbitrate constitute price fixing, within a contract signed under duress? Pg 5 lines 3-10.....has determined to address the lack of law...... Motion to dismiss pg 3 #8: appellants brief pg 3 line 8 authority; the constitution . In an overview of this case, as depicted within these papers (throughout 92-S-1561/ 92-C-1222, and gen #4-93-0847) The rights of each citizen are contested for, in many areas'.
The courts authority to be a neutral arbitrator is equally contested, brief pg 12-13. Because these are public issues and rights; the statement comes pg 21 brief; "the plaintiff must become the common public citizen, and the defendant must become the medical industry". Pg 22 redefine, "the attorney for the plaintiff (public) by law, must therefore be a licensed attorney provided by the state, for public aspects of this case. The fourteenth amendment applies. Jurisdictional basis is; the FOUNDATION, which the constitution is built upon: ......establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,.....bill of rights....constitutional law. Pg 5 lines 14-16 and pg 6-7 DO define these issues as LEGAL, not political, and has entered the court system. Motion to dismiss pg 3 #9 rule 341 (e) (5) "If the provision involved is lengthy, its citation alone will suffice at this point, and its pertinent text shall be set forth in an appendix." Section 2-622 is mentioned as part of the public aspects of this trial and therefore to be defended by th public's lawyer. Section 2-622 has never been relevant to the personal case of this plaintiff as has been identified within trial 92-c-1222 pg 9. Motion to dismiss pg 3-4, line 10; this brief includes a table of contents pg 26-28 which are specific for referencing; the record (pre-trial) also contains 3 introductory pages for referencing. Motion to dismiss pg 4 line 11 The reasons of contention are summarized by the words: monopoly, price fixing, lack of law, court authority, bill of rights, and constitution and are used throughout brief and record. As described this case is perceived and intended to resolve a myriad of legal issues, best described by the public's attorney (not yet appointed) pg 4 lines 14-16 pg 5 lines 1-2.
The issue of duty pg 5 line 11-13; arises within th preamble to the constitution (as read from an American legion meeting hall). "....we associate ourselves together for the following purposes: to uphold and defend the constitution, ....to preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the great wars, to inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state, & nation; to combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses; to make right the master of might; to promote peace & good will on earth; to safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom, and democracy; to consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness."
The reasons for contention are further identified brief pg 8-9 Improper treatment and billing and no honest effort to mediate, arbitrate, or provide an impartial peer review. Pg 4 line 6-8 (transcript 92-s-1561) Pg 5-13 of the case file "a case intent upon life in human terms, not medical terms, not greed or charity RATHER TRUTH, EQUALITY AND FAIR PLAY" found in the pre-trial, listed in the table of contents as pg 122 "case as filed initially". Lists a factual point by point contention of the initial medical realities and identifies the complaint and provides substance to the words pg 9 "I was given treatment NO ONE would consider routine, professional, or adequate...."
Reference to the record found pg 28, brief "the prepared statements which are a part of ...trial 92-c-1222 by the plaintiff, reflect the overall attitude and display a legal summary of this case" . This reference is found on the third page of the table of contents record (pre-trial_ following pg 123 trial transcript, (T1-6 prepared statements used in trial). Motion to dismiss pg 4 line 12; conclusions are pg 7 brief; jurisdiction pg 6 brief; relief sought pg 21 brief. Motion to dismiss pg 4 line 13 a copy of the judgement brief transcript pg 13-15 (92-c-1222 a copy of the judgment, pg 9 following 1222 for 92-s-1561 notice of appeal precedes trial transcript. Table of contents pg 26-28 brief initial three pages of record/ defense acknowledges; "plus remainder of trial 1222 not included in brief" pg 3 line 3 (motion to dismiss)
wherefore the plaintiff states, the opportunity allowed under Il supreme court rule 310 was/ IS VOID; due to dismissal within 8 days, failure to advise of such short notice, tyranny is suspect.
Memorandum of law pg 4 line 6; "...plaintiff explain why he is disagreeing with the trial court judge". The plaintiff disagrees only with the outcome of trial 1222 NOT its conclusions. Noted: "the court; are you aware of any sort of administrative rule or regulation that govern the defendant here...." Mr. Cornyn: NO". The court; are you aware of any statute which provides for a mediation or arbitration process for medical billing?" Mr. Cornyn; NO, you honor" . The court; "Now I want to ask yo those same questions Mr. Osterbur...." Mr. Osterbur; I am not aware, or have been unable to find specific laws or statutes on that." The court; are you aware of any administrative regulation, or rule....." Mr. Osterbur; I am not aware of any administration regulation or rule...." Mr. Osterbur; I've been unable to find statutes for that as well"
The court; pg 14 transcript (brief) now the function of somebody in my position as a judge, is to enforce the statutes which the legislature has enacted, and the governor has signed, and which are the laws of our state;....I know of no statute or regulation...and neither the plaintiff, nor the defense attorney, cite to me any statute or regulation....I simply am not in a position... an no judge I suggest is, in the position... to sort of make up the rules..."
Herein begins the statement "lack of law" pg 5 line 1-10 and concludes with public case!
The relief sought pg 10 lines 11-16 brief; to avoid further misconception regarding why was billing issues chosen, as the appropriate avenue. The treatment received by the plaintiff from the emergency room staff was AVOIDABLE, they needed only to question me, or allow me to state my distress, or listen to me prior to the injection of drugs, they did not; I suffered as a result! The reality involved is listed through the medical terminology exhibit B (pre-trial). The attachment of an opinion based upon misunderstood criteria to anyone, is prejudicial! I have now experienced this prejudice, applied to me, in part, by "mercy hospital"; now covenant medical center, many times. The avoidance of me, is/has become normal, through this terminology. Therefore the emergency room staff though wrong, is viewed by me as prejudicial, but similar to society's reaction. The fact that they watched monitors from afar and reacted with concern, (pg 6 line 13 initial case pre-trial) is sufficient NOT to charge me, as any other patient; but they reacted similarly to the majority with concern. The doctor has no excuse. The hospital has no excuse either, for failure to hear my complaint. It is not to my benefit to enter public court, nor is it my desire; but it is my duty.
Again this is expected to be a landmark case and as such, citations or precedents (to the best of my knowledge) do not exist. Arguably: this case needed to be developed to this state, prior to including the public at large!
I, the plaintiff, do expect a full and fair hearing. Property is at stake, freedom's are at stake, lives are altered.
I the plaintiff, do expect the definition found "the judiciary; John R. Schmidhauser": "the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibility for safeguarding economic rights, such as contract or property, and protecting non-economic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion...." to be applied.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
It is herein noted: no correspondence has been received by the plaintiff from the appellate court regarding this matter except: one letter dated Oct 7, 1993 stating "oral arguments (if requested) during the month of February 1994." and its docketing order Robert Steigman
one letter dated Oct 28, 93 from the defense: Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey including the motion to dismiss & the memorandum of law, then one letter from the appellate court dated Nov 5, 93; appeal dismissed. Nothing else
The court at one week dismissed my cause based upon; one mailing from the defendant (order #4-93-0847)
1 The court is called upon to examine RULE 343 (a) the plaintiff suggests; all requirements of time WERE accepted as complete (to date) by the court (letter and docketing order Oct 7, 93)
2. RULE 343 (C) the plaintiff suggests; even if this were not so, an affidavit is not shown. Nor is there cause to expect less than 14 days after the entry date filed and notice given.
An explanation is demanded by this plaintiff!
Review is sought at the supreme court level, no petition for rehearing was filed. BIAS is indicated and defined by: "legal error is serious enough to amount to misconduct when judges deny individuals their basic or fundamental rights......to a full and fair hearing....."
I, the plaintiff/ appellant, James F. Osterbur, came to the justice system expecting simple neutral arbitration, in a case (though medical initially) which can be defined as a failure to provide contractual services ( services received by me, which I consider below a minimum acceptance level). My complaint, "it is extortion to be required to pay for services Not received; when viewed by minimum standards." (initial case filed pre-trial). My complaint was, NOT only MUTE, to covenant medical center BUT even denied the access to define the problem. Monopoly & price fixing & rights, therein became the expected remedy through the court system. The court system has REFUSED to be involved, or does not have suitable authority NECESSARY for these important issues!! NEED, established the parameters involved within the proposed "amended case 92-c-1222". Those parameters are EQUALITY AND FAIR PLAY, for the public at large.
JUSTICE IS A REALITY, NOT A RULE!
Authority: (4) a judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard....." cannon 3. Commentary: exclusion through minor procedural infraction WITHOUT notice or opportunity to correct IS NOT JUSTICE.
The judiciary.......is often described as an institution that resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures. ( the judiciary, John R. Schmidhauser) commentary: constitutional issues are raised; the judicial office is a PUBLIC TRUST!
I, James F. Osterbur do declare a true and correct copy of these documents shall be delivered to the office of Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey at their office champaign Il before Nov 19,93.
APPELLATE COURT gen 4-93-0839 from champaign 92-c-1222
The docketing statement in the above entitled cause was received and filed...accelerated.....rule 343. set case for feb 94......
APPELLATE COURT appeal dismissed. Nov 5, 93
ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT
Plaintiff has filed documents......the record is not certified......personal files. ....does not comply with form and contents of briefs.....rule 341 -344. Defendant has filed motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for a pre-trial conference. ....the court concludes that the brief filed...is grossly insufficient under supreme court rules. ....Plaintiff's failure to file a coherent brief renders review impossible. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed. Appeal DISMISSED Nov. 5, 93
OATH OF OFFICE ETC art 6 CL. 3 Note 8. REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY OATH .....the constitution alone, as it is written, is the sole test ..........The first duty assumed by each judge under his oath of office is to support the federal and state constitutions;........
THE JUDICIARY John R. Schmidhauser .....resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures......involving corrupt use of the legal system and the arrogant manner......
OFFICIAL IL COURTS COMMISSION REPORTS
RULE 5 .....pleadings. They shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him.
RULE 11......shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be.....but the allegations of the complaint must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
COMMON LAW AND COMMON-LAW LEGAL SYSTEMS
...the law, ceasing to be the reflection of ancient custom, became a tool useful for building a better future. ...a difference of more than mere words.....
SUPREME COURT RULES pg xx
A (4) a judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law.....
JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND ETHICS
2.04. TOWARD LITIGANTS .....we take this opportunity to remind ourselves as judges that "tyranny is nothing more than Ill-used power...........stating a judge, "must lean over backward and err on the side of making sure that he does not intimidate the parties from pursuing legitimate claims.....
STATE OF ILLINOIS appellate court 4th district
10/5/93 RE gen 4-93-0847 Champaign #92-c-1222
TABLE OF CONTENTS
pages 1-3 points & authority/ 3-4 summary of case 92-s-1561/ 4-5 summary of case 92-c-1222/ 5 line 11-13 a duty identified/ 5-6 jurisdiction/ 7 law and the public citizen/ 8-10 introduction 11 brief / 12 question of authority/ 13-16 MONOPOLY/ 14-15 defendant has made legal claim/ 15 unconstitutional/ 16 the common defense/ 17 harassment/ 17-18 legally binding question/ 18 line 9-14 improper procedure/ 19 jurisdiction applied/ 19-20 constitutional decree/ 21 line 1-3 scope and need/ 21 line 4-10 cause of action/ 21 line 10-16 relief sought/ 22 line 1-4 right of counsel/ 22 line 5-10 public needs/ 22 line 11-16, pg 23 line 1-4 DUE PROCESS / 23 precedent/ 23 line 15-16, pg 24 line 1-5 NOT political/ 24 magnitude/ 25 names of counsel/
The prepared statements which are a part of motion trial 92-c-1222 by the plaintiff reflect the overall attitude and display a legal summary of this case.
TAKEN FROM the pre-trial Osterbur v. Covenant sent with the appeal
GEN # 4-93-0847 MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ........moves...to dismiss...... 1. the plaintiff ...represented himself pro se......attempting to appeal ...pro se.. 2. the plaintiff has filed.....court has accepted...along with a brief. 3. the defendant ....received "pre-trial documents....plus remainder of trial 92-c-1222 ...purports to be the report of proceedings...to be filed. 4. the court has ruled.....on or before dec 17, 93. 5. the ..brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (1) in that it does not include points and sub points in the argument or citation of authorities required. 6. the ...brief does not comply with IL supreme court rule 341 (e) (2) in that there is no statement of the nature of action. 7. the brief provided does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (3) in that it does not provide a statement of the issue or issues presented for review. 8. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (4) in that it does not provide a brief statement or explanation of the jurisdictional basis of appeal except to cite two irrelevant portions of the US constitution. 9. the brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e)(5) in that to the extent this brief questions the operation of certain statutes or constitutional provisions, those provisions are not provided or cited. 10. The brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) 96) in that there is no coherent statement of facts included in the brief and certainly no reference to any pages of the record on appeal by which the defendant could discern the context or chronology of the "facts" scattered throughout the brief. 11. the brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (7) in that the argument as provided does not explain the reasons for the contentions ...citation....or any references... 12. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (8) in that there is no conclusion and no statement of the precise relief sought by the plaintiff... 13. contrary to Il supreme court 342, there is no appendix to the brief. Wherefore, the defendant states that it is incapable of responding.....appeal be dismissed
In the alternative, the defendant requests under Il supreme court rule 310 that the court appoint a judge who will not participate in the decision of the case to preside at a pre-hearing conference to attempt to discern the issues which the plaintiff wishes to be heard on appeal....
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
.....dismiss the pending appeal.: 1. the brief....ruled inadequate. 2. in Boeger v. Boeger .....the court in referring to the appellants pro se brief stated....... 3. In Waitcus V. Village of Gilberts....the court found the appellants brief lacking ...... 4. in the case Application of Anderson.... the court pointed out. 5. In Britt v. Federal land bank ass'n of St. Louis.....the court commented: 6. The brief and other material filed....because....plaintiff explain why he is disagreeing with the trial court judge or what relief he is suggesting from the appellate court....dismiss the appeal
RULE 341 (a) page limitations./ b. Cover/ c. References to parties/ d. Citations/ e. Appellants brief (1) summary statement "points and authorities"/ (2) an introductory paragraph stating the nature of the action and of the judgment appealed from and whether...jury...and whether any question is raised on the pleading./ (3) a statement of the issue or issues presented for review, without detail, or citation of authority./ (4) a statement of jurisdiction/ (5) in a case involving ....constitutional provision......its pertinent text shall be set forth in an appendix./ (6) statement of facts, which shall contain all facts necessary to an understanding of the case....with appropriate reference to the pages of the record on appeal, or to the pages of the abstract...../ (7) argument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor..../ (8) brief of appellee or other parties/ (g) reply brief/ (h) supplemental brief on leave to appeal.....as a matter of right.....the points and authorities in the supplemental brief need relate only to the contents of that brief
RULE 342 Appendix to the brief- abstract (a) ....a copy of .....and a complete table of contents, with page references of the record on appeal. the table shall state 1. the nature of..../ 2. .....the date of filing..../ 3. The names of witnesses (b) Abstract (c) cases brought to supreme court from appellate court .......copies.... (d) entire record available (E) costs.
RULE 343 times for filing and serving briefs
RULE 344 number of copies, service and form and method of reproduction of briefs and abstracts
[from the court: appeal denied]
ITEM #75 STATE SUPREME COURT 76128
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
RE; COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL GEN #4-93-0441
TRIAL # 92-S-2991
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
SUPREME # 76128
I, James F. Osterbur, DO hereby acknowledge and submit for consideration
THIS
PETITION
FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
I do pray the justices charged to uphold the highest court in the state of illinois shall hear my complaint, acknowledge my right, and UPHOLD JUSTICE as the rightful cause and TRUE PURPOSE OF THE COURT!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO enclose a copy of the, Order of the appellate court, DISMISSED upon that date, September 2, 1993.
I, DO hereby state, I, James F. Osterbur make known to judge clem and the plaintiff during the motion trial, an appeal would be filed (initial proceedings) dated May 11, 1993 pg 5 line 7-8
I do now make known an appeal to the state supreme court IS MADE. september 21, 1993 Original trial date april 21,1993 Champaign county courthouse trial 92-s-2991, gen 4-93=0441
A statement of the points relied upon
JURISDICTION
Reversal of the appellate court decision rests upon constitutional issues as follows:
1. Argument is made, DEMANDING THE LEGISLATIVE LAW, as required by the constitution and its bill of rights which DISTINCTLY ALLOWS the court to dismiss on the grounds of: PROCEDURE IS FUNDAMENTALLY GREATER THAN JUSTICE!
1A. Reliance for this argument us based within and upon the Bill of Rights as follows section 5: "that the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary....."
AS INTERPRETED: LAWS and the RIGHT of rule belong to the legislature and executive powers. LAWS, or the obligation of the people, OR RIGHTS of the people, are STRICTLY established by the legislature and executive powers.
The Judiciary MUST COMPLY within the LIMITS AND INTENT OF LAW.
Section 6: "....nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."
AS INTERPRETED: IF, the clear and distinct LAW, HANDED DOWN by legislative or executive powers DOES NOT EXIST, THEN the judiciary HAS exceeded its authority: "NOT, to apply rules of conduct; RATHER to conceive issues of procedure or infractions of rule, GREATER THAN JUSTICE!
Section 7: That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, BY ANY AUTHORITY, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their RIGHTS, and ought NOT to be exercised.
AS INTERPRETED: The CLEAR AND DISTINCT description of; who determines, who is in charge, and WHY.
Section 15: That no free government or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
AS INTERPRETED: JUSTICE, IS A RIGHT anything which alters that RIGHT is to be abolished.
Section 2: That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, THE PEOPLE; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
AS INTERPRETED: WE THE PEOPLE, DO grant the RIGHT AND RULE OF LAW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTICE, PEACE, AND SECURITY; the DUTY GIVEN TO THE COURT IS: to preserve, HONOR, and protect. Those justices unwilling to do their BEST, DO NOT honor their position and should be REMOVED!
2. Argument is made: fails to provide citations to any authority.
The term, DUE PROCESS, IS COMMON and needs NO further referencing to complete an understanding within a court of law.
3. Argument is made: "fails to provide......a coherent factual background...."
Appellate Brief DOES INDEED take a step by step examination of the trial and judgement using actual trial statements. pg 21 of the appellant brief: "....This accusation is supported by reproducible evidence and eyewitness. This therefore must be considered adequate as ANY/ALL trial is entirely based within these REASONABLE CLAIMS.
4. This small claims court case represents a very simple, DISCIPLINE of the court: To provide equal access, an adequate hearing, JUSTICE described by EQUAL TREATMENT. The OFFICE OF JUDGE requires a minimal comprehension of the LAW. NO citation was given BECAUSE, NO citation was NEEDED.
5. Argument is made: ...."Appellant is appearing pro se.... obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel.
This appellant has NO complaint regarding the same rule theory BUT this appellant DOES complain regarding this very issue pg 1-2 of the appellant brief requesting clarity of the rule, for which the appellate court justices DENIED, by means of omission.
This appellant DOES suggest copies of such rules as apply to procedure SHOULD be handed out by court upon request.
6. Argument is made: "....substantial failure to comply...."
Appellant has received NO EVIDENCE from the appellate court which SUPPORTS this decision; RULES that apply, "a coherent description of the pertinent parts of the provision verbatim" {INFERRED: the court owes me the "pertinent parts"}.
(1) FOR CLARITY: NO objection was raised to the mechanic's testimony because, a CURRENT mechanical state was acceptable to the defense, HOWEVER use of current data as a description of 20 MONTHS prior to, by the judge was NEVER expected, as it is an obvious ERROR!
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
DATE 9/09/93
RE; COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL #4-93-0441
TRIAL #92-S-2991
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
TO THE COURT
BRIEF
A trial initiated over an extended warranty period.
Defendant decrees, NO warranty given, 18 months too long.
Trial judge: FOR THE RECORD, becomes the prosecuting attorney and accuses defendant of FRAUD, PLAINTIFF NEVER DID
Appellate court; DISMISSED thereby FAILING (as stated in abstract) to provide appellant DUE PROCESS.
James F. Osterbur
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
DATE: 9/05/93
RE: COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL #4-93-0441
TRIAL #92-S-2991
TO THE COURT
ABSTRACT
In response to dismissal 9/02/93
I, James F. Osterbur, DO respond to stipulations, which are UNJUST, an oral contract broken, and claims for supporting authority waived, and the disregard for JUSTICE hidden within the words: "substantial failure of appellant to comply"!
Therefore I, James F. Osterbur, shall seek higher authority.
It is my RIGHT, to expect reasonable treatment, within the constitution, as provided for, by the citizens of the United States of America!
I am a citizen and shall recite to YOU the framework description, upon which the constitution IS based:
"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 court is reminded, the individual public citizen IS ITS ONLY DUTY! The citizenry IS THE GOVERNMENT, and the public citizen IS: its official, its SOLDIER, and its supporter.
With respect to government documents: "a declaration" july 4, 1776 a passage reads: He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good....for the sole purpose of fatiguing them.......a mock trial.
It is from the Bill of Rights, section 3: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is BEST which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
AND AGAIN
Section 15: That NO free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to JUSTICE, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
I, DO hereby declare, the appellate courts, order filed 9/02/93 dismissing gen #4-93-0441 FAILS to conform to the doctrines granted by legislatures of these United States of America. FURTHER: The Bill of Rights, section 7: That all power of suspending law, or the execution of laws, BY ANY AUTHORITY, without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights, and ought NOT to be exercised.
Section 7: Reads clearly to the pleadings in question whereby I, a Public Citizen, come seeking justice, AM TURNED AWAY for slight procedural faults. IS THIS JUSTICE?
The question represented in section 7 IS: Did the representatives of the United States of America GRANT the court, ANY AUTHORITY to determine rules, whereby JUSTICE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
The only defense for this action; "DID the appellant refuse to comply?" HE DID COMPLY, only to be dismissed for rules left unmentioned in the court order.
As to compliance of the documents themselves; I, James F. Osterbur, DO hereby testify, that I called the "clerk of the court at (217) 782-2586, the appellate court", REGARDING the mailing of said document and purposely asked that representative of the clerks' office, IF, there is ANYTHING out of place or in error regarding these papers, WILL THE COURT send me notice so that I may correct them, prior to judgement? That representative declared to me, "YES IF something is amiss, I would receive opportunity to correct before judgement is made.
I DO hereby declare: "if not for these words I would have driven to springfield, to the court, to be certain everything was in order. I, James F. Osterbur, DO hereby declare, I accepted those words as an ORAL CONTRACT, with the court! DUE PROCESS therefore becomes a part of the appeals proceedings as well as the original trial in that: "a person IS entitled to be informed of ALL, (and protected from) UNFAIR ACTS and procedures."
Within the brief, issued by the appellant, was a formal complaint and request, for clarity, regarding the appellants rights, through the court, which was NEVER addressed in their dismissal WHY NOT? The court claims, failure to provide any citations to any authority, or a coherent factual background, yet these magistrates fail their own test. Have I, a public citizen, NO Right to inquire regarding the law and its interpretation? ARE court officials entitled to exclusive personal decisions OR MUST they address the public, as citizens themselves, NO GREATER THAN!
IT WAS WRITTEN: That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights.....pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
JUSTICE REDEFINES LAW as that which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; for the public!
Rules solely for the benefit of court officials BECOME TYRANNY, as shown within the simple words: "the court deems appellants' response to the rule insufficient and orders the appeal DISMISSED for failure to comply with supreme court rules.
Regarding the failure to cite supporting authority: It was EXPECTED that the ISSUE OF JUSTICE was sufficient, and the judge competent to understand.
James F. Osterbur
IN SUMMARY
Factual evidence, the transcript of trial 92-s-2991 was present. Coherent factual background defined by documents presented by the appellant were presented, and DO show specific instances of error in judgements, made by the presiding judge.
The claim for Due Process: "To be informed of ALL charges against the defendant" IS CLEAR AND NEEDS NO further supporting authority.
THAT JUSTICE IS GREATER, THAN ANYTHING which the court has alleged IS BEYOND DOUBT!
JUSTICE IS NOT THE DECISION OF MAN, IT IS THE REALITY OF HONEST WORK, FAIR TRADE, AND TRUTH BEFORE SELF.
A RESULT, NOT A RULE!
James F. Osterbur
FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE IS A RIGHT
The NEED for definition of these words IS APPALLING! I would offer to the court a simple statement: WHAT WOULD the framers of the constitution say to YOU, if this case REPRESENTS what they worked and died for?
I, James F. Osterbur, asked for JUSTICE, ADEQUATELY defined all legal violations as pertains to this case. have stated damages, unusable evidence, and lack of due process, in NO uncertain terms. Yet all the appellate court can offer is dismissal, based upon a slight infraction of a minor procedural mistake.
It is beyond doubt, "those who defend this nation, that it may live up to the words," "FOR WHICH IT STANDS", DID NOT/DO NOT fight and die for this.
The PURPOSE of LAW and government IS CLEAR: To define and adhere to standards that are acceptable to the VAST majority, and to allow reasonable freedom to ALL.
The purpose of a judge: is to identify that standard, uphold it, and fight to keep it TRUE, to the stated goals of the people.
FREEDOM, IS NOT PERFECTION: FREEDOM IS EQUALITY, NOT CONFORMITY, BEYOND NECESSARY LIMITS!
James F. Osterbur
TO THE SUPREME COURT {IL}
I, James F. Osterbur, do submit these papers as a "fair and accurate statement of the facts".
IF, you should find the statement inappropriate to the words "without argument or comment" I DO pray for opportunity to correct!
My personal view, "fair and accurate are sustained" and of greater cause than "without argument or comment" as it may preclude a complete understanding! JUSTICE, without understanding, IS NOT JUSTICE reprints of LAW apply; but will define further if necessary.
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DATE 9/15/93
RE: COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL #4-93-0441
TRIAL #92-S-02991
I, James F. Osterbur, having considered the matter carefully DO STATE: It is my desire to obtain justice.
I am defending myself, and have encountered an extremely unfriendly court system, as it applies to "JUSTICE FOR ALL". It is my decision, at this time, to call for JUSTICE, by the HONEST method of informing the court, to the BEST of my ability, as to this case, and expecting JUSTICE, as has been presented.
James F. Osterbur
ITEM #77 STATE OF IL APPEALS 4-93-0847
THIS IS NOT A MOTION:
Issue IS DIRECTLY TAKEN , regarding the Appeals Court assumption and then alteration of the Appellant/plaintiff, description of the Title heading of the list of Defendants/Appellee's.
The Appellant SUES the medical industry, as a whole, as represented by Covenant Medical Center.
This description IS VALIDATED, through the Reality of Billing Practices, and Courtroom tyranny, as did originate this case; these things are believed to be COMMON PRACTICE, throughout the medical industry and therefore become the basis of , the DEMAND: CHANGE IT!
This description is again VALIDATED, through the assertion that "medicine", establishes an inherent monopoly over the patient, which in relation to pain and/or emergency cannot be otherwise. Therefore the further DEMAND, to establish Equality, Based Upon, HUMAN REALITY, as is assembled within the concepts of ownership, work, and "I MUST NOT/WILL NOT, be valued or evaluated according to money". TIME makes everyone Equal, therefore time and whatever it shall normally produce, for that Individual, is the proper measure for Billing!
The human body Deserves FAIR TREATMENT, what is FAIR, is EQUAL TREATMENT, including the billing, according to the REALITIES of being HUMAN, NOT the consequence of inheritance, or greed!
The issue is again repeated: That the methods, employed by Covenant Medical Center, DO represent the "common methods" used throughout the Medical Industry, and it IS THESE METHODS; rather than a specific entity of the whole, being brought to trial.
The methods which are IMPROPER and thereby Constitutionally Questioned, are the focus; even though Covenant Medical Center, by reason of prior actions through the Court and its employee's, doctors, and lawyers, DO establish the physical Being, taken to Court!
ITEM #78
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
DATE 10/5/93
RE: OSTERBUR
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
TRIAL #92-C-1222
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
(this is a typed version of the original hand written copy, and should not be considered a "perfect copy", but as close as necessary)
SUMMARY STATEMENT
This is expected to be a landmark case and as such: there are no distinct citations available.
THE PRIMARY POINTS ARGUED:
1. Does a monopoly exist in medicine, over the patient.
Authority landmark case pages
2. Does failure to arbitrate constitute price fixing within a contract signed under DURESS?
Authority landmark case pages
3. Does the patient defined by medical emergency, DESERVE to be considered EQUAL in billing disputes.
Authority BEYOND DOUBT page
4. Is section 2-622 a violation of DUE PROCESS?
Authority fourteenth amendment page
5. THE PUBLIC CITIZEN CAN DEMAND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, be adhered to.
Authority the American FREEDOM page
6. The public at large deserves representation in a court proceeding.
Authority fourteenth amendment
7. The public citizen deserves to be protected and informed; as a hostage, as a possible victim, as EQUAL TO LAW.
Authority the constitution (case 92-c-1222)
92-S-1561 Pre-emptive bench trial
The plaintiff sought throughout case 92-1561 to reach a FAIR billing with regard to emergency room treatment. Case 92-s-1561 being a small claims bench trial and amended trial concerned with a FAIR appraisal of patient services. 92-s-1561 brought to light, concerns of monopoly status of the hospital over the patient. 92-s-1561 amended and original were dismissed with prejudice DUE TO: "this is NOT the forum for deciding that complaint". page 9 line 20-24, and page 10. Transcript 92-s-1561 by Doncy L. Tracy CSR RPR champaign county courthouse, Urbana Il 61801.
James F. Osterbur Plaintiff V. Covenant Medical Center Decedent. James F. Osterbur pro se David Krchak attorney for Decedent. the honorable Ann A. Einhorn Judge.
Case 92-C-1222 has sought from the beginning to address the myriad of problems encountered and its public consequences, with the purpose of Equality and Fair play for ALL SIDES.
The proposed Amended 92-c-1222, as provided for inspection, has determined to address the LACK OF LAW as has been provided by the legislatures, and is intent upon identifying and clarifying and legally determining; RIGHT from WRONG as it applies to patient/hospital/doctor/nurse relations.
In such manner the DUTIES required of a public citizen as defined by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, WILL BE MET!
Jurisdiction is taken directly, from the Bill of Rights section 5 (Virginia adopted 6/12/1776) "That legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary...." (That being, this matter HAS entered the court system and must be dealt with accordingly).
Further Jurisdiction comes from the constitution article 3 section 2 paragraph 1 "the Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution...."!
{INFERRED: reference is to the lower court rulings, not here, no law or power to intervene}
Jurisdiction, BEYOND DOUBT, is established by the preamble to the constitution and has been established throughout case 92-c-1222. This case IS DISTINCTLY ABOUT: JUSTICE, domestic tranquillity, general welfare, a more perfect union, and securing the blessings of liberty.
It is re-affirmed as written within the prepared statement.
LAW
IS for the common good, NOT a mechanism, BUT a human reality, Dependent on MUTUAL respect FOR EACH PERSON.
it is further stated
JUSTICE, is a Result, NOT a Rule. The Rule applies knowledge, the man/woman applies understanding, and the DECISION is expected as WISDOM, tempered within the Reality; NO ONE IS PERFECT.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
DATE 10/1/93
RE: OSTERBUR, JIM
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
TRIAL #92-C-1222
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
THIS CASE #4-93-0847
INTRODUCTION
As described throughout this case, these pleadings have arisen out of a billing dispute with the decedent, Covenant Medical Center. The dispute initially involved, LESS than $1000.00 billed to the plaintiff and contested by the decedent as, "I BILLED THEREFORE, I deserve". The Plaintiff paid for justifiable and appropriate treatment in the amount of $1200.00 and is contesting further billing as, "I WAS GIVEN treatment NO ONE would consider Routine, professional, or adequate and DO DEMAND, A FAIR and impartial REVIEW, as preferable to legal proceedings"! FOR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, and me!
The small claims court was initially chose, BUT proved inadequate. Therefore case 92-c-1222 became a case intent upon change, for the PUBLIC as a whole!
Of the ISSUES brought forth within this case the greatest ARE: The medical profession HAS obtained a MONOPOLY over me/us!
AND
The FAILURE to mediate a bill which was chosen by DURESS, NOT desire, constitutes PRICE FIXING, sustained by the REALITY, "I/WE could NOT argue/NOR proceed within NORMAL BUSINESS practice, PRIOR to receiving said service, THEREFORE cause exists to DEMAND mediation, as this would be FAIR! The opportunity to confront, arbitrate and then resolve, IS the basis of a contract. IF NO CONTRACT exists, NO BILLING CAN RESULT!
{INFERRED: a contract signed under duress is neither legal or binding}
A bench trial, dismissed by the lack of LAW, NOT through LAW!
An amended trial is sought to provide the FOUNDATION, for what is HONEST AND FAIR AND RIGHT, that appropriate LAW IS DEFINED!
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
DATE 10/4/93
RE: OSTERBUR, JIM
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
TRIAL #92-C-1222
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
THIS CASE #4-93-0847
BRIEF
On september 3, 1993 the formal proceeding specific to this case 92-c-1222 began AND was DISMISSED. This dismissal was allowed NOT because of LAW OR through LAW,
BUT
By the LACK OF LAW, as is evidenced within the transcript of proceedings, as prepared by, Nancy Sivertsen, page 10, lines 10-24 and page 11, lines 1-13!
Further, as stated by the Defense page 9, THE COURT: is asked, "DOES the court have the AUTHORITY to cause arbitration or mediation in a billing dispute"? This motion for dismissal, was designed so that a legitimate complaint would NOT be heard, THEREFORE the question is NOT based upon MERIT this question goes DIRECTLY, to the AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC LAW. IF the court has NO AUTHORITY over billing disputes among the PUBLIC, I DO demand to see the LAW and have it defined to me by the court!
A contradiction IS IDENTIFIED and definable by law within page 9, IF the court has NO AUTHORITY or OPPORTUNITY to be involved within a dispute between a corporate entity and a man, and the man clearly has NO further actions by which, EVEN a definition of the problem may be entered, THEN the corporate entity has achieved a CLEAR AND ABSOLUTE control over the man and may charge ANY PRICE it considers possible to recover or MORE. THIS IS A MONOPOLY over the INDIVIDUAL!
Page 9, further contends line 11 & 12, "there's NO contract here...." Meaning to me the patient/plaintiff, "I have NO further legal recourse BECAUSE the decedent FAILED, "TO GIVE" me any. THIS TOO clearly defines a monopoly exists between the patient and the decedent. HOW IS IT, that the decedent MAY CHOOSE, to give or NOT give LEGAL RIGHTS to me? IF I have NO choice, IF the will NOT/CAN NOT be involved, then the decedent has indeed achieved a MONOPOLY OVER ME!
Page 9, lines 13-15 IS FALSE as defined within the proper context page 13, lines 18-20. It cannot be construed IN ANY FORM that a claim has NOT been make. NOR can it be legally asserted that attempts to collect money are LESS; than this plaintiffs RIGHT to seek arbitration or mediation.
Page 9, lines 1-7 is an attempt by the decedent to hide behind an UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Section 2-622 has been defined within case 92-c-1222 (court documents) AS CONTRARY to the Bill of Rights, specifically section 11, and therefore distinctly VIOLATES MY RIGHT, as a public citizen!
Section 2-622 further indicates the EXTENT to which the medical profession as a whole, HAS CONTROL over the patient (a MONOPOLY)! Page 9, lines 18-19 Clearly indicates the defendants position, as interpreted, "there's' NOTHING the court can do about it"!
This plaintiff adheres to the common defense of an American citizen, that those things FOUGHT FOR/DIED FOR, are greater than, decisions which are contrary to the Bill of Rights, sections 1,3,15 and the constitution (its intent to provide, JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND SAFETY)!
Page 10, lines 1-9 is an attempt to , BELITTLE, the plaintiffs' complaint/pleadings by saying "lines 3-4 page 10". I, the plaintiff DO testify, I entered an emergency room WITH HEART pains, and DO suggest, "IF Mr. Cornyn, had entered with the same pain and the same treatment, IT WOULD NOT BE, a small matter." Again, IF NO BILL or written agreement exists (No legally binding instrument) then I, the plaintiff DO NOT OWE any money and the decedent is HARASSING ME for donations, I do NOT wish to give! IS THIS NOT THE LAW!
Page 11, lines 23-24 and page 12 line 1, indicates a signature was obtained. Page 12 line 13-15 is its interpretation and line 22 its legal description. Page 13 lines 4-5, determine, "legally binding". As medical billing shall indicate $1200.00 was paid to covenant medical center and within the proper construction of such an agreement, as was made, ANY DISPUTE MUST BE resolved by mediation/arbitration BECAUSE, NO OTHER LEGAL AGREEMENT EXISTS!
Page 13 lines 16-24, CANNOT be considered within the context of this motion trial, as it shall/could limit the plaintiffs legal recourse UPON later being sued over this matter by covenant medical center, HAS NOT, doesn't mean WOULD NOT!
Page 14 and 15 Clearly define the LACK OF LAW, as well as page 10 lines 10-22, and page 11 lines 1-13, the lack of specific legislation which DISTINCTLY applies to the TRUE and SERIOUS issues, brought to the court, through this case MUST BE ADDRESSED.
IT IS TRUE, that whenever specific laws cannot be found, THEN the broader issues which DO FALL WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES ARE THE LAW!
IT IS ALSO TRUE, whenever a specific lessor LAW is found contrary to constitutional issues; THAT LAW must be abolished! Therefore the precedents which apply; BEGIN at the constitution and Bill of Rights.
Of particular interest: "article 3, section 2, paragraph 1 of the constitution of the United States; The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution....."!
The constitution and its PURPOSE are ESTABLISHED WITHIN ITS PREAMBLE: "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."
As applied to this particular case, the plaintiff MUST BECOME the common public citizen and the decedent MUST therefore BECOME the medical industry!
The cognizable cause of action for this statement IS: "a case INTENT UPON life in human terms, NOT medical terms, NOT greed or charity, RATHER TRUTH, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY!" Let it be further recognized, the RELIEF SOUGHT IS: FAIR TRADE PRACTICE, EQUALITY, MONOPOLY CONTROLLED AND/OR ERASED where possible, SPECIFIC DEFINITION whereby legislature in assembly shall be enlightened by JUSTICE and produce INFORMED FAIR AND EQUITABLE LAW!
THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL exists within these statements which enlarge this case to the PUBLIC at large, and to the medical industry as a whole.
The cause of action and relief sought clearly define PUBLIC CAUSE FOR: promoting the general welfare, insuring domestic tranquillity, establishing justice, and shall deal SPECIFICALLY with issues involving the "common defense".
According to the fourteenth amendment DUE PROCESS MUST BE provided, therefore the RIGHT OF COUNSEL IS CLEAR, that the PUBLIC MUST BE represented by counsel as may be "appointed by the court", that the citizenry are adequately defended according to LAW! Those issues which clearly are PUBLIC, personal controversy belong to this plaintiff! IF the issues arise.
These RIGHTS, the PUBLIC definitions, and the desire for JUSTICE ARE The constitution amendment as written within the "Virginia" Bill of Rights, adopted june 12, 1776 section 15: That NO FREE GOVERNMENT, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles!
This case CANNOT be construed as political BECAUSE, "IT HAS ENTERED THE COURT SYSTEM, AND MUST BE DEALT WITH, according to the LAW OF THE LAND, and within the concepts and realities brought about through this case.
It IS TRUE, THE LAW OF THE LAND IS, what the vast majority of people, THOSE WHO FIGHT AND DIE TO PROTECT IT, shall allow!
The courts, and legislatures, and governments as declared throughout the constitution ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS (those who carry out the wishes of the public).
These matters are literally about life, death, and property and CANNOT be brushed aside.
James F. Osterbur
ITEM #79
PRE-TRIAL DOCUMENTS TO CASE 92-C-1222, NOW GEN # 4-93-0847
OSTERBUR, JIM Vs. COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER Plus remainder of trial transcript 92-c-1222 not included in brief
A mixup in numbers occurred to originally designate this case as 4-93-0839 (my mistake)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES taken from handwritten
1-7 initial description (argument)
8-11 obligation to pay revisited
12-15 complaint
16-17 determination (cause)
18-20 acknowledgment of prejudice by plaintiff (to plaintiff)
21 legal proof of monopoly exists
22-24 initial description of treatment
25 last attempt to remain, out of court
26-31 exhibit (some)
32 small claims
33-34 amended small claims
35 "portion" of applicable law
36-38 mediation necessary
39-43 support given for law
44-45 defendant speaks
46 trial notice
47 92-c-1222 begins
51-54 brief (initial)
54-56 offer
57-59 enlargement to include mental health reform
60-63 correspondence with honorable J. G. Townsend
64-68 correspondence with Mr. Krchak
69-76 subsequent brief to Honorable J .G. Townsend and defendant
77-87 motion & reply
95-97 rights
98-103 reply of defendant & answer
104-112 clear demand (issued as warning)
113-120 issues enlarged
121 their image
122 case as filed initially
123 trial transcript not contained in brief
trial pages 1-6 prepared statement used in trial
124-141 issues relating to medical terminology
141-143 not for profit challenged
144-145 issues involving slander
146-147 constitutional defense
148-154 religious nature identified
155-165 testimony regarding self
166-167 contract for public use
pg 1-7
exhibit J JUSTICE THE RECEIPT OF FAIR (EQUAL) TREATMENT TO EVERY PERSON, irregardless of prejudice, pre-conceived idea's, or realities unimportant to a specific event or occurrence.
This paper is about justice sought for each party involved in a specific incident between myself and the corporate entity of covenant medical center. This paper is also about justice sought for each member of society; by communication of matters unjust, that these things may be corrected, defined, and thereby controlled by & for societies benefit.
In a dispute concerning care received [some words failed to copy] versus money charged, there must be proof of honest service, workmanship, & honorable treatment. I am the recipient of a bill which I do hereby declare as UNJUST (particularly due to the reality I never saw "was rejected by" the doctor, neither was I referred), NO ONE within the emergency room questioned me at any time regarding any symptom or pain. (I was never spoken to by any of the emergency room staff except the doctor who refused me saying, find someone else). The only other communication to this staff was a moment when four people came quickly, intent upon giving medicine AGAINST my wishes (I had begun to feel a little better). They said they had to and after much medicine decided it was a loose clip on their machine.
The medicine caused me to feel worse (bad) but because of that medicine which I specifically rejected I was admitted into the general hospital. Within a half hour or little more my own body became nervous and it felt like a ring of needles was over my heart, not drastically hurting at that time but there. These particular nurses listened to my complaint and decided to treat the matter seriously, I received more drugs, this time I accepted.
To this day I do not know whether the pains in the hospital were caused in part by the emergency room medicines or were the recurrence of physical pain. Either way I was literally in physical pain when I entered, I was rejected by their doctor, I was totally ignored by the emergency room staff (except for a machine which malfunctioned) and DO feel abused. In my defense; I know I felt physically bad, I know my heart was somehow involved, I know I had one night 3 or 4 weeks after leaving that hospital which was critical to me, & I know I am physically not the same as before this occurrence.
I was within the walls of that hospital for 21 hours, was charged $2100.00 for my stay. Experienced less than five minutes each, of nursing care from four people I asked not to treat me, WAS rejected by a doctor, and was hooked to a machine on two occasions for roughly a minute. My total emergency room services including everything was NOT over 22 minutes and probably less. The machine malfunctioned at a clip point terminal. The service I did receive, I asked not to.
I have paid twelve hundred dollars at the agreed upon rate which I feel certain is far beyond justice for services rendered. While in the hospital I received less than 2 physical hours of nursing care, plus a bed and their (nurses) realistic care & professional service during that time.
For the purpose of billing
emergency rm staff services labor for 20 minutes (it is not known if necessary) doctor charged $120.00 approx (was NOT paid) hours in emergency room don't know (less than 1 hour, I think).
Hospital; room 20 hours approx, nursing services (individual care) 2 hours approx medicine (I don't know if caused by emergency room procedures)
SUMMARY If I was seriously Ill, I should have received the attention of the physician on duty, or at least been referred. If I was not seriously Ill why Was I given serious medicine? This answer has been decided by both parties differently and must be decided in court. Having went to small claims court to file, I am told small claims is NOT really about people who are billed improperly, but for people in business or for whatever reason, cannot collect money which they have billed to someone else. I filed anyway.
THE INJUSTICE Entry within the emergency room of any hospital requires a signature to pay and a statement which says, they can do anything they want, without liability for what they do (If you conscious).
Pg 8-11
exhibit K
to covenant medical center regarding James Frank Osterbur
In 1990 July or August, I entered your emergency room and have since sent you a letter regarding the treatment I received, a copy is included. A portion of that letter stated I would pay $1000 dollars, I have paid $1000 plus 12 percent interest or the sum total of $1200. According to my records. I WILL PAY NO MORE, regarding this matter! In summary you (the hospital, and its doctors) used and abused me, as a patient both financially, personally, and emotionally. Insofar as any resemblance to medical care is concerned apart from the nursing staff, there was NONE. I have experienced serious physical pains after experience with you, and have survived it, you as a hospital are LESS than acceptable apart from extreme. I received NO CARE from anyone but the nurses on 8th floor and will NOT pay for rejection, inappropriate use of drugs, no doctor, no attempt at all to in any manner or way treat me as a patient. NOR will I accept the extortion now offered me. (To sign a contract under duress is extortion). I have paid what I consider to be more than enough! In retracing the events you will be required to prove 5 minutes of time by 2 people, then later 5 minutes of time by 4 people. 5 minutes of time by someone with a machine (twice) in your emergency room. Plus altogether not more than 45 minutes of nurse assistance throughout my hospital stay of 21 hours was in some manner worth $2000. Total man hours in emergency 40 minutes. Total hospital man hours 45 minutes plus billing & 10 minutes of blood work. Incidentals not more than 30 minutes (sheets, etc).
I am willing to pay a fair price for services asked for and received, which I have and more! I am not willing to be threatened or extorted. If you fail, I will work personally against you. I do demand a signed, PAID IN FULL! Which is in all reality more than I received. Signed.
Pg12-15
of care and medicine Life; a word describing a chemical factory called the body and the spirit which gives the body reason. The will to survive is the reality of choice; I want to survive, because of the happiness I have known. In the reality of living the body needs care, and may need the care of hands not your own. Care is not money, care cannot truly be bought. Each person who does care about someone else has chosen: this person, this life, has value! NO ONE can buy that decision, it must be accepted. Society itself must choose when, in relation to money, on an equal personal (not financial) basis how much we want for our self or are willing to pay for another. Feeling bad, I asked to be taken to a hospital, I was experiencing chest pain. Upon arrival a short statement was given me, to be signed. I then waited 20 minutes or more for a nurse to come. The doctor in charge chose not to treat, or examine, or refer me. While in the emergency room, the staff abruptly came and injected me with drugs, later after the drugs, it was decided a machine malfunction had occurred. I spent 21 hours total in that hospital during which time I was given medicines for heart problems which I complained of to/ by the nursing staff. In summary, I had no doctor, I was never examined by more than a machine, I received medicine which I may or may not have needed and which most certainly affected me, in the minutes or hours directly following and may have caused pain and consequently the other drugs administered. If this is not so, then my heart was experiencing pain and deserved some resemblance of professional care. Whether, from (hospital given) drug or from the inside, I felt badly for many days afterward, and still am not completely healthy.
In summary I was charged $150 dollars by a doctor who never came within 5 feet of me, nor spent more than 5 minutes, in my presence while telling me I won't treat you, find someone else!
For being in a hospital 21 hours I am charged $1,962.31 upon complaining of the bill; a person assigned to the task discovered I was overcharged $70 for supplies, I didn't receive. It is then necessary to pay for the treatment. I am told I will pay at a rate the hospital shall decide, at the interest the hospital will choose. If I do not do as they command, regardless of my situation, or protest, or willingness to pay a realistic amount. They will slander my name, putting my name on a list entitled people who don't pay.
Pg16-17
to covenant medical center & associates regarding James F. Osterbur acct#0-26945-6
YOUR STAFF HAS FAILED. The nursing staff was fine.
Upon receiving treatment I am appalled at: I have attempted to reach a realistic conclusion with your billing staff. This packet is sent to you, as well as TV talk show hosts.
(In my mind) the doctor representing you; had no right to refuse/ at the least could have referred. I did not come to your facility, JUST TO GIVE YOU MONEY!!!! I did not come as a figment of my imagination. I physically felt BAD.. You may have made things worse. I came fully understanding and expecting to receive reasonable treatment and pay for it. Your bill is too high. Your doctor too poor. And more. I have said $1000 I will pay (today) to call the account PAID IN FULL! Beyond that amount you may take me to court. If you wish to attempt to collect the rest: BE CAREFUL!! I will return, the treatment I receive.
Pg 18-20
exhibit m The description of a life: to many , life is defined by what you possess on the outside, the house, car, job, etc. These things are fought for, but do not say anything about how it was achieved. Those things which are on the inside speak directly about who and why and how. Some people spend their own lives in search of these questions. Those who think only of possessions, understand very little about people, even less about life.
When everyone may be whatever they choose without hurting anyone, then we shall live in freedom. The word freedom implies "I" may proceed with my life in whatever manner I chose without ridicule. A man who spent less than five minutes in my presence, asked only what I ate on the previous day, which I answered correctly, without hesitation added to me his own description, during the following 3 weeks I spoke with seven psychiatrists each for no more than fifteen minutes only one listened at all. I submit I was a curiosity rather than a patient. Since I was rejected (because of the label) this much I will say in my own defense: I chose to enter into two main events which are a part of my memory, the first to learn, about what is inside of me. The second to learn of a specific religious parable. Irregardless of how these are perceived I chose to enter, and I chose at every question, even if errors were made. I will suggest to you, it is NOT irrational to seek understanding of oneself, this life, or the life to come. James F. Osterbur
pg21
exhibit n For the purpose of a legal affidavit suitable for court use. I am looking for a medical doctor who agrees with the following:
Any patient who enters an emergency room clear of mind and in physical distress, deserves to be examined by a qualified doctor if one is present. Deserves to be questioned, or allowed to state the nature of said physical distress. Deserves to be heard when refusing treatment.
There will be no requirement to testify. The entire burden of proof is upon me. The only question or statement or legal consequence is to be, the above encircled statement.
Pg22-24
The difference between a machine and a qualified doctor. I felt the need to seek medical attention at an emergency room for a physical problem. Being unable to diagnosis my condition, except for my heart was involved, I said, I was experiencing a heart attack. The emergency room staff hooked me to a machine, the machine said I was ok, so the heart doctor on duty refused to examine or refer me to anyone else. As I began to feel a little worse again I was hooked to a machine again, later four people suddenly came in and injected me with medicine even though I said to them, don't I'm starting to feel better, they said they had to, then decided a clip on the monitor was the problem. I then felt worse and was admitted to the hospital, where I again received drugs.
My two BIGGEST complaints: no one in the emergency room asked me anything or was even close enough at anytime for me to talk to, all I knew for sure was I felt badly and , that affected my heart to some degree, I feel it is inexcusable that not one doctor or nurse had the decency to ask what hurt or at least allow me, to say what I felt like. A machine was my only doctor and a second machine gave me medicine, I didn't want. For this I am charged full price. The medicine first received may have caused the need for a second dose. I don't know! I do know there are many processes inside a human body and one affects another. I was used, abused, rejected, and refused and then charged an amount only an EXTORTIONIST would think fair.
I went knowing medicine is a long, long, way from perfect. I went knowing I would be charged an outrageous sum of money. I did not know I would never be examined. I did not know a machine would dispense medicine to me. I did fail to realize the full extent of power society has allowed hospitals and the COMPLETE lack of justice available to the patient. The court is NOT an answer; fair and equitable treatment is James F. Osterbur
pg25
I physically felt bad!!! you may have made things worse. I came fully understanding and expecting to receive reasonable treatment and pay for it. Your bill is too high. Your doctor too poor, and more. I have said $1000. I will pay (today) to call the account paid in full. Beyond that amount you may take me to court. If you wish to attempt to collect the rest: BE CAREFUL...I will return, the treatment I receive.
Pg 26 a signature pg 27 a complete lie because this doctor never came within 5 feet of me and told me to get out, find someone else
Pg 28 psychiatric ; evaluation; patient was alert, oriented, cooperative, flat affect but demonstrated no evidence of thought mood disorder.
Pg 31 balance 969.26 pg 32 failure to be seen by (refused examination of) by doctor. Inappropriate medical treatment. endangerment of life.
Pg 33 amended complaint "Failure....under sec 1156 (a), 1,2,3, and sec 1154 (a) (11) of the social security act SSA 408-3 (to provide access or information regarding the plaintiffs right for a determination may be made apart from the hospital).
Pg 35 sec 1156 [42 USC 1320c-5] (a) It shall be the obligation of any health care practitioner and any other person (including a hospital or other..... (1) will be provided economically and only when, and to the extent medically necessary (2) will be of a quality which meets professionally recognized standards of health care (3) will be supported by evidence of medical necessity and quality in such form and fashion and at such time as may reasonably be required by a reviewing peer review organization in the exercise of its duties and responsibilities.
Pg36-38
amended claims 92-s-1561 The desire for a fair appraisal of services rendered. The issues; WHY must I pay, when the payment and credit agreement, when properly viewed as signed by a person experiencing serious physical distress, can not be considered a free enterprise decision. There is no determination to say no bill is due, rather after a period of time and self healing it is now time to come to a reasonable decision regarding: honest money owed for services rendered.
As I am now able to defend my right. There is a philosophy common to many which says "pay the doctor, hospital, etc ANYTHING, what good is money is your dead".
I personally believe in FAIR & EQUITABLE dealings in every matter. Meaning honest work will be done at a fair wage. The description of serious physical pain is not a "license to steal", yet who will refuse to sign their papers when life, health, mobility, work, and so much more depends on reasonable health. I have tried to discuss with the hospital on several occasions, with several different people the reality that I think this bill is unjust. Each one clearly said "I have NO rights, pay the bill on our terms, period". Taken from active orders regarding my case as provided by covenant medical center admitted 1:33 pm approx 10 min of time (1) person was helped to main emergency room at 3:12 approx 10 min (1) person. Given injection 3:32 approx 5 min (4) people. Says given oxygen/ fails to say I refused. Moved to hospital nursing assistance 2:25- 2:51 given pill nursing assistance 10:33pm approx 15 min . Blood work 12:28 5:59 12:48 3:13 portable chest x-ray 1:00 5min (1) person
pg 39-43
to the defendant: covenant medical center The deliberate and willful disregard for justice, within the confines of a fair and legal billing dispute: ARE the entire cause and legal action contained within case 92-s-1651, which is and always has been strictly a billing dispute. Your suggestion that I have not met the requirements of section 2-622 is unsupported, case 92-s-1561 is a billing dispute case NOT a malpractice case.
I am personally surprised at your lack of knowledge regarding said amended complaint perhaps you have spent too much time fighting over the "letter of the law" rather than the "intent of the law". Read the material again, WITHIN the words written at the bottom: democracy is a government by all the people, FOR ALL THE PEOPLE. We live in a democracy , do we not, which does mean laws that apply to one, apply to all. Sec 1154 a 11 as was sent to you is a subsection of social security act, under title XVIII: health insurance for the aged and disabled. Perhaps I should have included the portion of pleading in case 92-c-1222 regarding the disability I have incurred; page 5 subtitle 1 clarifies this disability (by your written words it is apparent; to you case 92-s-1561 & 92-c-1222 are involved in these matters). Irregardless of how you view this claim; you have clearly stated my entitlement regarding this social security act XVIII within your medical file "physical examination" signed by P. Thopial MD read it again.
While it is true I do not collect any such benefits and further: I DISAGREE entirely with the claims! You have made it possible for me to collect, at any time, with just my signature.. Therefore I do claim the rights, you say I have and demand a review by an appropriate, peer review organization. I do claim this right within the words page 530 sec 1155 [42 V.S.C. 1320 c-4] as sent. It is the defendant actions which has made legal action a reality NOT the plaintiffs actions. It is the defendants actions which have increased the cost of these legal actions. It is the defendants actions which have make it necessary to increase the time I have spent in court and out of court only intent upon justice. It is the defendants actions which have made case 92-c-1222 BECAUSE I do not want to endure these things, nor do I wish anyone else to endure them.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that the case 92-s-1561 and case 92-c-1222 and the peer review (as demanded herein) be speedily commenced as justice will allow James F. Osterbur
pg 44 motion to dismiss ; 1. ..complaint fails to state cause of action .....does not provide any facts establishing that this act somehow relates.....2. complaint ......why it is claimed it is indebted to Mr. Osterbur in the sum of $956. 3. original complaint was dismissed.... Wherefore the defendant...prays ...dismissed with prejudice....and for costs. As an additional motion to dismiss.....1. the complaint ...allege a healing art malpractice.... 2. the plaintiff has not followed the requirements of section 2-622 of the Ill code of civil procedure ...not filed an affidavit establishing cause of action. 3. .....defendant is entitled to a dismissal under section 2-619 of the code of civil procedure.......wherefore .....dismissed with prejudice and for costs.
Pg 46 hearing 92-s-1561 courtroom H oct 8, 92
Pg 47 transcript of 1561 "Dismissed with prejudice at this time"
pg 48-50
within this case 92-c-1222 there exists claim for constitutional rights, as defined primarily by the bill of rights. The following points of law shall be discussed pursuant to these issues
1. The constitution is the law of the land.
2. The constitution defines what legislatures and courts of law and presidential authority can/ will be'
3. The constitution (bill of rights) determines the boundaries of those in powerful positions and establishes the rights of every citizen.
4. No court, nor president, nor legislature has power over the constitution, rather the constitution has power over these, and every citizen as well.
5. The constitution is the law of the land and NO OTHER LAW (as defined by courts, presidents, or legislatures) has power over its fundamental rights.
6. The citizenry as a vast majority, does have power over the constitution, within the realities of one man/ woman one vote: after sufficient notice and proper procedure!
7. The elected official works for the citizenry or he/ she works against the common good.
Further: be it hereby known and attested to as sufficient warning
The use of language or other intended for the sole purpose of discrediting me, degrading me, or which is slanderous of me, will not be tolerated. IT IS A REALITY, only if proven: the illegal monopoly over/ of human suffering by the entire medical profession :has clearly been established. The honest and complete purpose of this case 92-c-1222 has therefore become: to end the monopoly of the medical profession; and to establish a fair and justifiable description of equality & honest work.
Thomas Mamer & Haughey June 21, 93 RE: 92-c-1222 Judge Townsend: enclosed.....motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support.....
Pg 51-54
to Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey for covenant med center RE: 92-c-1222
within your letter dated 6/21/93 you claim to have enclosed copies of your motion & memorandum: it is not enclosed? Send me a copy.
Regarding this case I have enclosed the preliminary brief for your benefit, I have been informed (as stated) that I have one year to complete and present this case before a reasonable motion of dismissal shall be heard, if not please advise!
Within this brief there is reference to constitutional issues which may not be immediately clear to you so be advised as follows. This case has deferred to the cause of your (medical profession) monopoly over me a citizen. The definition of monopoly being: exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices, and/or something that is subject of such control etc.
Your control over me as patient and citizen, are clearly demonstrated. The bill of rights & constitution define what you may control, read them! The conviction of monopoly places you within a number of laws governing monopolies which you, the medical profession currently dismiss, that is going to change!
The trial issues are to be: malpractice: if (exhibit b) heparin is common procedure for a patient as described in the physical examination , or a coverup?
Determination (mental): apart from all other criteria an accusation has been made against me (slanderous in nature) for which I received NO trial by jury, that I might defend myself. Deliberately in violation of the bill or rights sections 1,8,16. Thereby describing in its entirety a complete monopoly over me.
Extortion; that there is no definable area apart from serious public trial whereby I may arbitrate FAIRLY over billing differences. Clearly defining a monopoly over me!
That exclusive power to control is found within the medical profession WITHOUT public approval beyond what may be considered as necessary.
THESE things and more shall comprise trial 92-c-1222
my offer to you; I have considered this matter carefully, what it shall cost me, and what it shall cost you. The term war used herein refers to the battles which shall ensue after the trial during its appeal, and thereafter. I will tell you plainly I intend to challenge your not for profit status, etc. however in matters of fair and /or unfair I have decided it is unfair to subject you as a specific entity rather than the medical profession as a whole, including you. UNLESS you refuse this offer. LEAVE ME ALONE, mark your account paid in full, and send a letter of apology to the collection agency & me stating an error in billing was made. In return I will let this case 92-c-1222 remain untouched (not dismissed) that the court system shall take care of the matter through the issues of time past (your dismissal is to be dropped) your reply is due by July 10,93. Be aware I do not intend to let these issues drop rather this offer is made so that neither you or I must defend them directly, rather they are public issues and should remain public issues. If you choose to defend, I have weighed the cost to me and I will pay whatever it costs to pursue (socially, financially, or physically) James F. Osterbur 6/23/93
pg 57-59
in response to June 29,93 letter I have received NO materials of any kind from you regarding this matter since before march of 93 NO motion to dismiss nothing! Except for your one page June 21,93 and its certification page. I have underlined your words. I remind you, I have received no motion to dismiss from you. Send the words. In response to June 29,93 a discussion is unnecessary, those are/ will remain the terms. There is only one other option apart from court available to you: the words and descriptions used within the medical records of me are inaccurate and inappropriate and unconstitutional as you altered my life without trial, without allowance for any legal option, which is: WRONGFUL, demeaning, and slanderous. When such terms ascribe meanings and actions detrimental to life itself. That the use of such language has been hurtful to me is easily proven. That no right exists to; steal from me my rights or reputation is easily proven. That medical records are personal, yet mine were used against me, can be proven. Time constraints for bringing a lawsuit against you do not apply as the medical terms applied to me were again used by you in the emergency room. Whereupon this case began and again were of a hurtful detriment to me, within the case 92-s-1561 causing the judge to be less than impartial (a review of the audible tape will prove this). As such and within the reality of work insurance etc, you do afflict and affect me every day: therefore the case is current. I do offer only one other option: erase all medical records of me (which would include those held by lutheran general hospital and return every penny paid in this matter, & the emergency room fiasco and the matters involved between you & me will be called legally resolved for good. James F. Osterbur
pg 60-63
starts court letter J.G. Townsend July 5, 1993 (get from court or scanned copies) replied: to the honorable J. G. Townsend champaign county courthouse RE; 92-c-1222 I am just informed by letter from Thomas,Mamer. & Haughey; a motion to dismiss & a memorandum in support have been filed against this case. I do hereby declare, "I have received NO such papers" I was refused a copy of the letters as sent. I will assume they were lost in the mail otherwise_____, I have again requested these papers and if denied again shall file contempt motions accordingly. With regard to case 92-c-1222 this case began as 92-s-1561 a simple money issue, in increased to case 92-c-1222 as a precaution if no resolution could be found in 92-s-1561, none was. I do respectfully request you to read both cases before making any decision. Although wordy the realities involved are simple beginning slowly with an honest attempt over less than $1000 it has increased to the threshold of a multimillion dollar lawsuit covering many of the ills involved in the medical industry. The result of an absolute avoidance of dealing with the issues and their legal responsibility to hear my complaint and produce just cause. A settlement may or may not be made, that is entirely their decision. I have proceeded with reasonable haste regarding this case 92-c-1222 as nothing could be done until 92-s-1561 was decided. The delay since that time has been involved with work, life, and so on. I do expect to be fully prepared and ready if necessary within the month of August 93, they are notified of this. As I represent myself this is the best I can do and it is within a one year time frame, which I consider my right James F. Osterbur
pg 64
starts with attorney letter July 12, 93 "dear mr. Osterbur; this is in response to materials received from you. Enclosed are copies....Your letter to judge Townsend ....was not appreciated.......was in poor taste...I do not understand.....I do not see any point in continuing discussions....I will be prepared to argue this motion to dismiss..
Pg 65
To David E Krchak RE: Osterbur vs covenant 92-c-1222 Your letter July 12,93 is not quite correct. The letter beginning " in response to June 29, 93...." clearly asks for a courtesy from you which was unanswered, prompting the words July 5 93. If they had been sent or if the date of the motion had been mentioned, that letter would not have been sent. However I was not correct either, due to my lack of formal training, it was assumed the motion dated oct 2, 92 was over as it had been replied to and no further actions were taken until this time. It was my understanding a motion to dismiss does fall within time constraints and that matter was therefore over. I do hereby apologize for that mistake, with the exception that, courtesy extended to me would have meant courtesy extended to you! Your further statement of "I do not understand...." seems unlikely to me however I will try again: the following conditions are to be met: 1st offer: 1. Leave me alone. 2. Mark the account statement which instigated this matter PAID IN FULL. 3. Send a letter of apology to the collection agency and me stating an error in billing was made by covenant medical center I WILL in return Let this case be dismissed by the court system due to time constraints. I will not let it be dismissed by you. I do not offer to drop the issues of a public domain rather the personal issues involved shall be discontinued. My second offer: instead of the first offer erase all medical records of me including those held by lutheran general hospital and christie clinic where I was sent for tooth extraction and carle hospital where I once applied for work (they are inaccurate, inappropriate, and unconstitutional) 2. Return every penny paid in this matter & the emergency room fiasco to me. I WILL accept that the matter is/ has been legally resolved for good. 7/14/93 James F. Osterbur you have until July 25, 93 to reply.
Pg 69-76
The honorable J. G. Townsend champaign county courthouse The realities involved within case 92-c-1222 initiated as a result of my own personal experience within their emergency room ( identified; my own case, is as follows) and (review of pleading). The treatment received was ; unacceptable. The original intention, when billing issues arose was simple: to state what happened to me and demand suitable adjustment, as is my right. I approached this matter through the billing department, and various other departments to no avail. Each said that's the bill PAY IT, no hearing to determine if anything I might say had value: only the bill not the patient had value. Having exhausted all reasonable possibilities through the hospital, I began at small claims court case 92-s-1561 expecting to be heard. I received only motions to dismiss. 92-s-1561 became amended case 92-s-1561, again requesting to be heard, and again receiving dismissal with judge einhorn words (page 9, lines 1-5 transcript by Doncy L. Tracy jan 29, 93. Mr request was for a peer review: which is a formal hearing by the medical establishment and did bring substantial evidence to court. Case 92-c-1222 then became my formal request for change within the medical establishment as a whole, for the RIGHT TO BE EQUAL, and have stated cause: exhibits J,K,L,& O. For this I received another motion for dismissal and replied; titled (the issues, and exhibit N). Now comes the decision; requiring a partial disclosure of my personal life as well as, requiring covenant medical center to defend the medical establishment as a whole (the result of which could affect many people). I admit to delaying for some time regarding this decision but within a reasonable time frame. The realities involved will require me to defend and alter my life as well. Let it be clearly noted I have looked for justice throughout and found very little. This case has then become a citizens demand to be treated according to the words described by constitutional statements (samples are given). My right to ask is honestly defined on pg 18 (a case intent upon life in human terms, not medical terms, not greed or charity, rather truth equality and fair play. Pg 19 further explains the plight and fears of the common citizen pg 21 (workers compensation) define previous supporting judicial intervention. Pg 21, 22 describes legal moral grounds for trial, with the specific intention of controlling : "what is fair and legitimate". Pg 23 clearly defines a precedent set by the federal government. Closing arguments pg 23 & 24 seek to provide a beginning to the respective problems with tangible solutions. Let it be hereby known and understood every reasonable opportunity was given to covenant medical center, & their controller, servantcor. They have chosen of their own free will to enter this lawsuit and must now endure whatever consequences it legitimately requires: they are fully forewarned, regarding the use of media to represent my case. The expectation of using their name to represent the medical profession, the reality of subsequent cases which may or may not have originated from their establishment, to `prove a monopoly exists by the medical profession over the common citizen within the context of this case. In closing the arguments are clear and specific, the right to trial is absolute. Jurisdiction as the words (case) is primarily confined to money & contracts cannot be denied, the time constraints are insufficient for denial. As to the public aspects , I prefer the words written at the bottom pg 24 "for us all, it is written: there is no honor in being sick, no value over physical health. I/ we are not seeking monetary reimbursement, rather we are seeking to live with courage, respect, and to honor those we love". The definition of this statement is simple: to be EQUAL to those who otherwise attempt to rule our lives. That subsequent monetary reimbursement is now being considered in an amended case 92-c-1222 is strictly and specifically the result of arrogance & greed (it is the only method whereby attention could be directed with any certainty to this case, from management). They have viewed and thereby accepted the consequences! James F. Osterbur
pg 77
starts with motion to dismiss 92-c-1222 ....moves to dismiss ....under sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Il code of civil procedure....!. the written materials.....fails to state any legally cognizable cause of action....it utterly fails to advise the defendant of the basis for this charge. Wherefore the defendant prays....dismiss...section 2-615... 2. the plaintiff has already filed case 92-s-1561 purporting to allege damages arising out of treatment.... Wherefore, the defendant prays...dismissed under section 2-619 (a) (3) .... 3. The written materials filed...liberally construed to state a cause of action....section 2-622 ...none of the written materials....comply....with the provisions.... Wherefore the complaint must be dismissed under section 2-619....in that it does not follow the provisions of section 2-622 of the Il code of civil procedure.
Pg 78
To the attorneys: Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey re: 92-c-1222 I have received your letter dated oct 2, 92. And do reply; paragraph 1"...it utterly fails to advise the defendant of the basis for this charge". This statement is completely false, as the 25 pages do literally describe exactly, a portion of my own complaint and the cause of action for which this trial has begun: to change your current billing practices, in the ways listed within those 25 pages or in human terms: to methods which provide equality and fair play, to every individual. This case does depend on the following 1. The hospital environment does constitute a monopoly upon the individual. 2. A person involved within the struggle for life & limb in real terms can not be considered legally involved in a free enterprise situation. Rather the definition of extortion is: to force money from a person by intimidation or abuse of authority. Therefore the law has been lax ( careless or negligent) regarding the overseeing of these matters and I am demanding change. And do reply: "paragraph 2 (memorandum) ....the written materials constitute a general & vague harangue...." This statement is completely false as the case itself defines the human condition, the problems associated with the average citizen entering a hospital are clearly outlined, the realities of treatment and billing are serious (as defined by my own case), the expected remedy is specific. And do reply : "paragraph 2 (motion) has already filed case # 92-s-1561" I have made every reasonable attempt to avoid a lawsuit, If ANY respect had been shown to me by the defendant prior to this time: this lawsuit would have been avoided, the defendant has chosen. I do hereby request these two lawsuits be joined; 92-s-1561 to this very lawsuit 92-c-1222, to avoid unnecessary court time. And do reply "Paragraph 3 (motion) .....state a cause of action for healing art malpractice as governed by section 2-622 of the Ill code of civil procedures..." even the defense acknowledges my right to trial. However my right is better stated within Ill code of civil procedure chapter 110 section 2-612 page 527 "...the supreme court reviewed amendments....the aforementioned provisions were designed to insure fairness to the litigants rather than unduly enhance the technical considerations of common law pleadings...." the provisions of section 2-622 being referred to have been answered on pages 14 & 15 of the lawsuit 92-c-1222 and evidence listed as exhibit N show an attempt to comply. Further page 13, V clearly shows lawsuit 92-s-1561 was never formally commenced. And do reply "paragraph 4 (memorandum) ....frivolous claims of malpractice." I do not consider the matters defined within lawsuit 92-c-1222 in less than very serious terms. And do reply paragraph 5....threat to reappear...& will regret it. " these words are an attempt to insure the defense has adequate warning, with regard to my personal life. Further pg 25,26 of this lawsuit declare the trial as public in every sense. Meaning to the defense and its lawyers, the medical terms and matters not specifically necessary to this case, in an attempt to slander, or defame or discredit my life may result in a lawsuit involving very large numbers, as monetary compensation. My right of privacy is clear. On pg 26 I have stated, "I have the skills necessary for this work" these words are not to be construed as a legal education rather I have learned the meaning of the words Justice & justifiable, and will argue my case within these meanings. I do further state: the use of latin ( a foreign language) or the use of numbers (as might identify isolated phrases) does not fall within my constitutional rights either nationally or of this state: as evidence the Miranda rights; allow a murderer to go free if a policeman fails to read him/her their rights in a manner which they understand. That I have a right to trial and its remedy: as a citizen of Illinois section 1, section 2, section 12, section 13, and section 23 of the Ill constitution all speak to this right and cause. James F. Osterbur
pg 88-97
starts memorandum in support of motion to dismiss oct 24, 92 (Scanned copy or court) To the attorneys re: Osterbur vs covenant 92-c-1222 the issues involved will be resolved. The words sent by me may appear as "general & vague harangue" to you at this time, but I assure you they are not. Case 92-c-1222 is written with the public in mind, is intent upon empowering the public with concepts for altering specific aspects of medical "business", and written for media "30 second, video segments "as well as talk show formats. The matter is settled then and we shall enter court and media review. Irregardless of the outcome of case 92-c-1222 we shall meet in court. If case 92-c-1222 is dismissed, this and case 92-s-1561 shall be combined into the final case (cause) which will be described as "a case to remove the monopoly of the medical profession from me and from us all. 92-C-1222 & 92-S-1561 shall be my evidence and therefore every word shall be scrutinized closely. From time to time I will send to you the question you will need to answer, that you may be prepared and choose your witness. I do intend to bring forth issues in a timely manner and shall expect early fall as the appropriate time for hearing. You are requested to take the matter seriously. I do intend to allow other cases which clearly show "monopoly" to be included in this action and have included the contract which I will be using. These are cases, not people, which shall be included.
Insofar as my "RIGHT TO TRIAL" I do redirect your attention to the pages titled (the right, as a citizen to confront injustice) a reprint is included. That I received POOR TREATMENT beneath, an acceptable standard, is clearly written: (my own case is as follows, and the review of pleading). That covenant med cent has never made any acknowledgment of my case or cause or person until the letter June 29, 93 and then only when confronted seriously. That case 92-s-1561 is the initial cause for case 92-c-1222 is completely clear. That case was heard 12/3/92. That I am not a lawyer is NOT cause to discredit my case or sufficient reason to confine me to a timetable that is unfair. Those who are private citizens require far more time than those who are paid. The writing "now comes the attempt for adequate judicial intervention, and an examination of judicial process, " clearly show I am working within the law, and : beyond and because of, a simple billing dispute (as initially entered 92-s-1561) this case 92-c-1222 has become very extensive and as such, particularly within the public nature of this case, sufficient time to prepare is not only my right, but my demand. The cause is clear, the evidence is ready 7/21/93 James F. Osterbur
the right, as a citizen to confront injustice
It is the SOLDIER who bought every right, every part, every day that FREEDOM to choose, to be able; describe life as reality, rather than as living someone else's reality. It is only the vietnam war, when the individual, the man or woman was remembered on a simple wall, as this one gave their life, for your freedom. There are NO politics in the death of a soldier, these men and women did NOT have anything to do with why they were there, apart from citizenship! It is written in the bill of rights of this country section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community;,,,,. It is in these words that men and women went to war, believing what the politicians did say to us all. That soldiers died for the sake of this nation and for the HONORABLE CAUSE to help others. The realities of war are: those with honor, are only a number in the words of a commander, BUT these individuals PAID FOR FREEDOM with BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS! (Those of every war). I have come to court within the blessings of freedom, (to choose peaceful arbitration of what is clearly a public controversy). As an individual citizen I DO CLAIM my right according to the bill of rights section 11: that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred. The cost of a nation is paid by the individual, the reason: to choose "which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government" (taken from the introduction to the bill or rights).
Pg98
starts with reply of defendant aug 02, 93 REPLY OF DEFENDANT ....in reply to pleadings filed by plaintiff....1. the pleadings ....shows no basis for any relief requested. 2. plaintiff states unacceptable, yet provides no support for this claim either factually or as required by section 2-622 ...3. Given every possible favorable construction, ....fail to state any cognizable cause of action.
Pg 99-103
A reply to 8/2/93 1. The foundation is simple: I/ we have a moral and legal right to contest inappropriate billing. BY ANYONE, including the medical profession. I have clearly shown (the lawyer mailings are proof) covenant med center has NOT dealt with me legally, as they have denied me my right to be heard, regarding said inappropriate billing. The court is then obligated, and my time required for what should have been a very simple matter. The bill in question cannot be construed as voluntary, do to medical realities and as such, NO cause or case exists to state these matters were previously addressed 2. Whatever the plaintiff is able to prove is for a courtroom (trial) to decide. At this moment, section 2-622 does not apply as the fundamental case is: billing rights. It is real however, to expect the amended case as has been previously suggested, shall expand this case accordingly. 3. My rights have been violated and I have repeatedly stated: this must change, that whosoever need to arbitrate their bill, will find it possible to do so, without the need of a courtroom. The cognizable cause of action is: (initially) in part, HARASSMENT. I have been charged money, a bill which I do NOT owe. They have refused to arbitrate, to listen, to accept responsibility, to justify, to clarify, or to accept their responsibility under law. To respectfully allow this matter to be resolved under the jurisdiction of the court. HARASSMENT is warranted by their absolute failure to recognize that "I do have the right to demand justification of the charges (billing) brought against me. They covenant med center, have refused all attempts/ all requests, to formally examine, all attempts to informally examine, and are attempting to derail all attempts to legally examine these actions and this billing in question.
Subsequent to formal legal actions, attempts have been made by collection agency's to collect even though the matter is clearly, legally, pending through the court. HARASSMENT is evident by the simple words: I cannot legally be charged for work, which cannot/ is not/ was not justified, particularly die to a signature made under duress. This entire case has been about equal right, if I can be charged, I have the RIGHT to ask, "what for". And DEMAND AN ANSWER James F. Osterbur 8/16/93
pg 104-112
the change required, by the lack of justice, prompted by inappropriate treatment, the failure of equitable solutions, and the uneducated denial of law; have become the only reasons for my decision to end the search for a fair, gently, and peaceful solution to these problem. It has become NECESSARY to end peaceful arbitration and engage in serious war, through law and justice and justifiable! Although case 92-s-1561 began and ended as a billing dispute, it cannot be said justice was served. Meant as peaceful arbitration over an inappropriate bill, this case began when after many efforts, by the plaintiff, to be heard by the hospital staff failed without the slightest indication, I the plaintiff had any rights, regarding any matter involved. According to the hospital my rights ( cause for complaint) ended upon signature to the admittance form. I did, clearly ask the hospital staff for arbitration (a chance to be heard, indicating I had been treated badly) on several occasions, with different people, each occurrence brought the same result: "I" a patient have no rights, pay the bill at our interest rate, on our schedule, as we see fit! (No hearing, No objection, No complaints PERIOD) . When the letter from covenant med center came indicating: if I did not pay the remaining amount, I felt to be unjust, they would give my name to a collection agency. Herein began the search for true justice: for I paid for services I received at their price: it is for abuse, mistreatment, denial, rejection, slander, and failure I have refused to pay! Clearly, I am the defendant rather than the plaintiff, in this matter, even though I was forced to begin the proceedings. Case 92-ss-1561 began as a billing dispute was enlarged because the billing dispute failed, to become case 92-c-1222. Unfortunately case 92-s-1561 remained but had a purpose. It became my intent to change the billing procedures of the medical profession at large, within case 92-c-1222, as defined within those (these) words. As it became necessary to pronounce at the hearing for case 92-s-1561: the most probable cause for the poverty of my treatment within the emergency room (that began this trial) is the word, attached to MY LIFE and left there, by mercy hospital of urbana, IL now covenant med center; some years ago. WITHOUT MY CONSENT, without any hearing or trial, without the slightest possibility of being heard or the opportunity to give any explanation in my defense, at any time! At the hearing, case 92-s-1561 although clear testimony was given within the court papers; including photocopies of the law, a description of how this law or mandate of the social securities act applies to me and to this case; during my attempt to lay a foundation for cause, I was interrupted by judge einhorn who was clearly about to give judgement, NECESSITATING an end to the reasoning and primary reasons which brought about the amended complaint 92-s-1561. Instead it was required to rely of law! Judge einhorn, declared I don't understand how this law applies, did not allow me to expand, did not declare any contrary law or reason (law) which excluded my claim and made judgement against me. Amended case 92-s-1561 was introduced to provide a quiet arena (the peer review), required by law, and to provide money to cover the debt left by case 92-c-1222 in its previous form. I did not feel it to be prudent to contest the judgment against me considering case 92-c-1222 was /is yet to come. The previous purpose to case 92-c-1222 was merely to engage in matters of public importance, in a public forum, to begin a public debate over the issues as depicted by case 92-c-1222, and to obtain some form of justice regarding my own case. Because the law was rejected, and a peer review is no longer possible, the possibility of a trial without the description attached to me, within my own personal medical files, is/ has become impossible. It is for this reason that case 92-c-1222 is hereby enlarged, to include damages: for failure to provide a forum suitable to the relief of matters such as these $10,000. For injection of drugs against my wishes, lack of attention which resulted in drugs being given, by the emergency room staff $10,000. For the slander and rejection without an examination by the staff heart doctor $1,000,000. For extortion: defined by ; a contract signed under duress, for which no alternative existed beyond this lawsuit, regarding money that was NEVER owed. $1,000,000. For the unlawful victimization of my life through the use of a medical term for which; I was allowed no say, no trial or hearing, no rights of any kind, and which is wrongful defamation of character, slander, demeaning of my life and a clear usurpation of my constitutional right of due process under the law, and violates nearly every section of the bill of rights $7,000,000. For requiring of me to define a large portion of my private life to you and to the public at large or PAY EXTORTION $7,000,000
Be it hereby known: I am the accused, the burden of proof regarding the medical term, I am accused of belongs to covenant med center. These damages are the direct result of judgments by the hospital staff, made without the slightest conception of justice. These damages are sought not a personal gain, rather all but $30,000 (a year's salary0 WILL Be given to christian charities for medical relief. Those who feel the numbers are inappropriate need only look at charges by the medical profession. I will reduce the numbers by whatever percentage the hospital will reduce and maintain their rates.
Pg 113-120
THE ISSUES The foundation of this nation as declared in general congress assembled, July 4, 1776 ......but, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such "government" and to provide new guards for their future security...!
The "government" written above is for/ within this instance, exchanged with the words "medical establishment", which has become in this day not unlike the tyrant for which these words were written. This "medical establishment" has invaded this land, not with soldiers, but with a long train of abuses and arrogance with only one goal in mind: to amass the largest fortune possible. In achieving this goal, the people have lost their right to REASONABLE arbitration. To a legitimate trial as provided by the constitution, a trial where one may peacefully seek justice! To a fair and fitting cost regarding services that were never asked for or desired. Rather these services are the result of personal war against outside forces (a sick body) required for survival. To the protection of ourselves from those unfit for this service; by denying our right to a full and impartial patient survey, available for public inspection at all times. To define what is life among the living and what is not (these things are for everyone, they are not for legislatures or doctors). To be equal: there is a limit to what anyone can honestly charge for wages, above and beyond the rest. To retain as a citizen life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! Men, women, and children have needlessly lost life, limb, and health as well as, their homes, their work, and everything they worked for BECAUSE OF GREED. To an honest wage for honest work, not flat rates where 30 seconds is a charge for $50. Dollars or more. To uncontrollable interest rates and payment schedules in area's where there was no intent to ask (need) these services (accidents & illness are not chosen). To the FAIR appraisal of what is little more than a poor hotel room. To services rendered, not a charge for services never received (if a nurse attends to a patient, that to, should be an hourly rate, or____). To control of people who say "in effect" we want gold trim everywhere, when a simple building would do just as well. To a business that should NEVER have been a business, honest care, people and true needs require situations where money is not on everyone's mind. Rather quality care at a cost everyone can afford (a percentage of income and/ or community service if the community must pay). To law that protects both sides from improper retribution. To realities that deal with, "mistakes will be made". To control the teaching institutions so that doctors may never again control their own competition. To control as well, the experimentation which ______called genetic engineering. To the right of citizenship: to be EQUAL. I have no right according to the hospital, regarding billing. To competition from competing suppliers of services or products. To determine as a NATION the proper conduct for a hospital and the penalty for improper conduct. To admission, without the papers which reek of extortion.
Those who would say, "these things interfere with free enterprise" FAIL the simple test: sickness or accident IS NOT A CHOICE! Free enterprise is a situation where BOTH parties have the undeniable option to enter and accept the business deal or walk away UNHARMED! Let it be further remembered: doctors control their competition, which makes free enterprise IMPOSSIBLE. (Control is based within college admissions, medical exams, and hospital acceptance). And the deliberate fatiguing and control over new interns, for the sole purpose of pressing them into compliance. There are people from every walk of life who contribute to the healing of other people; those who make drugs & surgical instruments, those who make machines, those who transport products, grow food, supply fuel, provide clean area's, housing etc. A doctor is simply the last worker on a very long line of people involved in health care. To show the arrogance of the medical profession" at large, you need only look at the symbol of "the american medical association (ama)/ an association of many doctors. Take an honest look. We live and work together, for the benefit of all, or we will die together, for we are too many for any other way!
Pg121 the medical symbol
Pg 122 the description a case intent upon life in human terms not medical terms not greed or charity, rather truth, equality, and fair play.
The definitions of cause; typed therefore located elsewhere
Pg 123
the prepared statement for trial, typed:
9/2/93 RE: covenant med center vs James F. Osterbur case 92-c-1222 A "table of contents" regarding the attempts for justice, to date. In brief: An emergency: initial cause, can not be negotiated, a medical event. Covenant med: completely unwilling to listen to my complaint, of poor treatment. Refused all attempts, never allowed, even the opportunity, to constructively state the problems encountered, at covenant. Simply pay whatever they say! Price fixing: the opportunity to discuss billing is/ can only be considered: fair trade practice. Failure of covenant: to arbitrate over inappropriate billing is conclusive. Not perfect: covenant med center makes mistakes, this is only one. This situation demanded mediation. Small claims: was considered the most reasonable method to secure a speedy determination of differences. Small claims: proved unsuitable. Amended small claims: sought mediation through a peer review board; trained doctors from different locations to determine fault. This was denied without cause! Even though law was supporting and shown. A minor conflict; over less than $1000 has become an instrument which will alter my life as it proceeds through court. Because arbitration and mediation have been denied to me, to date. This is unfair. Equality: that reality which states, what is fair for you, is fair for me: is the simple framework of this pleading. Monopoly; the legislature has allowed the medical community to police itself: if, I must have a doctor tell/ allow me/ to take another doctor, hospital to court. They themselves have become their own judge & jury. This is an Unconstitutional proceeding. The court: to date refuses to mediate this dispute and as such greater pleadings have been issued, as a warning. Covenant med: only, at the risk of a multi-million dollar lawsuit, made one short, very limited attempt to avoid court. Covenant med, through their lawyer, has requested court proceeding to be enlarged: covenant being directly handed the legal possibilities and being fully forewarned of the content and nature these proceedings would take, have chosen. Summary: this case is defined by its initial title page. The desire for truth & fair play, is evident, as well as, clear, that the plaintiff has worked in good faith toward a fair & reasonable solution. For the record: no attempt has been made to cause covenant med any undue trouble or expense. They have not dealt in good faith with the plaintiff throughout. Any person complaining of heart problems is in no position to sign a binding contract. If conflict arises, it must be dealt with at a later time, dependent upon health. To the court: the issues herein have purposely been established in such a manner, as to cause: the moral rights of a public citizen are greater than insignificant, definitions or interpretations of minor infractions, in either, procedure or law. Justice establishes law as a part of society. Minor infractions divide and destroy when used against the public good. Beyond the smallest doubt each public citizen is worth more than any infraction or procedural difference, and is surly equal to law. The law in NOT greater than the citizen. The law IS PROVIDED by the citizen, capable and intended, to provide justice for all.
LAW is for the common good, not a mechanism, but a human reality, dependent on mutual respect for each person. James F. Osterbur
trial transcript pg 2-8
pg 124-141
my own history in part RE: 92-c-1222 I am required to defend, or to pay extortion, otherwise my own dignity will be trampled. I James F. Osterbur, walk according to my own designs and desires. My purpose is to learn and to live according to my belief in JESUS OUR SAVIOR. I will remind whosoever reads these words: it is not up to you to decide, or describe any aspect of my life, I AM FREE to choose, to define, and to describe; just as you and your life.
To begin, there are those who say I am less capable than they, to define life, its experience, or my own. These argue I do not differentiate accurately between what is real and what is not. I have been described as incapable of reason without their help, and should be dependent upon their drugs. They could NOT be more WRONG! A quick and simple definition of this portion of lawsuit 92-c-1222 is: does anyone have the right to make these types of decisions or does the accused have a right to defend him/herself before a jury? Prior to being subjected to such defamation of character, slander, and so on? This is the only question to be decided within this lawsuit 92-c-1222 concerning me. And IS a question of law (constitutional, and moral, and social)! The question: who determines your right to choose, for your own life: the law ? Social determines, if one person has harmed another. The law moral determines, whether actions by one party were meant to cause harm to another. The law constitutional determines what is right or wrong based upon the words fought for, with BLOOD! Clearly I have not acted in any manner which applies to these laws. Clearly I am the accused. The law states: the accused is INNOCENT until proven guilty. Therefore the question to be decided is: did I harm any other person? Did I willfully intend to cause anyone else harm? Did I or did I not, have the right to pursue my own interests in my own way? These questions are the true and full extent of the law, as it applies to the reality and consequence of, the medical practice of : belittling life through terminology or descriptions from doctors, hospitals, medical personnel, which right or wrong, follow and to an extent control; without so much as a legal complaint or objection by the person most directly involved. Medical files ARE NOT private and personal, before I ever saw people whom I wanted to understand, they had already been given descriptions of me which did not apply, making it impossible to be heard. Medical records are required, but can never be the descriptions of anyones' life. These words apply: to the formal description of monopoly (which is, an exclusive control over people and price). The question begins: where was/is my RIGHT to contest this judgment over me? If such a right exists, why are patients untold? Why; is the question, which goes beyond the description of circumstance, and enters the complexity of human life. It is not a right to know, what any other person defines as their life. It is gossip to guess. The question: does the medical profession have the right to define or is life too complex? Can you be accurately defined; by someone else, and labeled for life thereafter, or is that an exclusive control over people? The reality is simple: does the patient have the right to disagree, legally? Or is whatever the medical profession decree's the last say, irregardless of the patient. REMEMBER THE LAW: the accused is innocent until proven guilty, therefore it may be possible for the medical profession to legally describe someone but NOT without a legal hearing or trial, or RIGHT to appeal. The question here is : yes or no?
Addressing the more complex issues of behavioral traits, thought patterns, and freewill choice comes the decision: who has the right, to live any individual's life? I personally do not agree with the choice of greed, which is the desire for money without cost or right, it is clearly a desire for control (power) over others. The corporate entity of covenant med center adheres to this description throughout this case, to date. Should a corporate entity be allowed control over an individual? Should we (the public), demand control over the corporate entity? Corporation DO NOT provide jobs for people, people provide jobs for people. A corporation is: a few words written and registered legally to describe the activities to be undertaken. The corporate entity of covenant med center describes itself as, "not for profit", does their behavior depict this type of activity, or do they use their status for monetary gain? An examination of their records and billing practices show their ways: does, "not for profit" mean--"profiting on prescriptions, charges beyond costs for rooms, dumping existing structures outside of previous agreements, spending excess money for wages, perks, for a very few at the top management for bonuses? Is that what, "not for profit" means? The question here remains: does an exemption from income taxes entitle the holder: excessive income levels, structures that are "gold-plated" or methods that abuse the public trust? A better description is: an exemption shall produce equitable solutions, in all area's for the giver, and those receiving and be fair, to the public at large. Equitable means: "a fair and level and justifiable method for dealing with each person."Returning to the question of legal practice. Does terminology defined by the medical profession produce legally binding actions upon the individual? If, any term (description ) follows an individual throughout their life, can influence work, social desires, cause preconceptions by family, friend, associate, or people hired. Then it has been inescapably bound to that individual, by those responsible for that description. The question here: legally, who has the RIGHT to describe someone: even the criminal gets a trial! The fundamental issue is not a specific description RATHER it is the legal and specific right, to disagree and be heard, BEFORE being subjected to slander, defamation of character, etc! The medical profession is NOT by itself sufficient to determine what will remain, for the patient, a lifetime. In all area's of human behaviors or illness, what does not affect the public by a test of law, IS NONE of the public's concern, not do these area's allow discretionary terminology by anyone. FREEDOM; is the right to choose! Being subjected to criticism, legal or medical terminology, etc, in area's not the public's concern: clearly define an exclusive control (monopoly) over the individual. The ISSUE; when is it correct, and under what circumstances allowed, for the medical profession or others, to intervene in someone's life ( or the publics)? The more correct answer; is defined by law (social, moral, & constitutional) but may include activities specifically intended to degrade life, for the public.
My fundamental defense to the medical establishment: is most clearly written in constitutional law; that being the bill of rights, section 16; that religion, or the duty which we owe our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason & conviction, NOT by force or violence; and therefore all men/ women are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. Other sections apply as well.
I do hereby state: the actions and reactions, are "religious" in origin and do define a personal trait being, I desire knowledge regarding life & death issues, and DO pursue this knowledge with an open desire. I view life and death to be sufficient evidence that these matters are IMPORTANT.
What occurs in this quest is not dependant upon what is known, rather departure from the designs and ways of men/ women allow for investigation into the inner realities. These things define SELF, and bring understanding. Wisdom follows. To those who read; beware of how you interpret these words (above). The rules are different. The intensity extreme! You may choose to enter, but you shall NOT choose beyond (how, when, where, what or why)? JESUS does watch over these realities. Those who believe are SAVED before, during, and after, only the literal ACCEPTANCE of your belief is necessary! The rules: there are NO sacrifices to be made!!!! you cannot interpret; the answers will be given in time! You cannot depend upon ANY visual, hearing, or preconceived expectation! ONLY FAITH is to be your guide/ NEVER give up !!!!!!! Prepare in prayer and praise To JESUS DO NOT FEAR/ BELIEVE IN JESUS!
As to my own experience, I have made many mistakes, REPENTED, and went forward. Even the little things are EXTREMELY important. If you fail, GET UP, REPENT (i will do my best, not to let this happen again, and make repairs) and GO FORWARD! Simply put: learn, do, & live! DO NOT try, you will fail; DO your best, you will do well! Of the many things I have learned: JESUS HAS SAVED EVERYONE, That work is done! They need only to accept their salvation, as real! As important! As truly desirable! And live accordingly! Never sacrifice, not for love either, love needs no sacrifice. NEVER act or react in ways that do not CLEARLY identify JESUS OUR SAVIOR IS ALIVE! BE AT PEACE with your own humanity! Remember what you do have, not what you don't. Do not be concerned about any portion or part of an existence, banished from your LIFE BY THE FATHER THROUGH JESUS!
NEVER interpret, you either understand or you don't! Believe as if your life depended upon JESUS OUR SAVIOR!
Regarding my own medical history, I DO DEFEND as follows: as it regards two false teeth, which I purposely knocked out; having entered into an unfamiliar experience (by choice), and under NO duress to do so, I went examining. The cost, to disregard how others saw me. Through the first minutes or hours the images/ words proved false and I was at ease. It was at this point an image challenged me to knock out those front teeth and I turned and forcefully declared: JESUS gave his life for me and I WILL NOT sacrifice anything! The image replied; those are false teeth and defile because they are false. It was at this point that trouble began. The first mistake was defending anything. I/ we DO have the right to choose what we believe (right or wrong) & that which is of the FATHER Does not Need to be defended by you or I!
The instant I had turned to answer, I had also entered within the journey to come. The first battle was over, who owned this body (my body) and what right did I have to use or alter anything regarding this body. My answer (at the time) was, I DON'T KNOW. The body or this "house" wherein I live is, without doubt, a gift to me by our CREATOR! The question: whose body is it truly, and is there a boundary? An open statement; IF there had not been false teeth, I assure you with NO doubt, real teeth would NOT have been removed. My answer at that time was, "I better not take any chances and removed the false teeth". A BAD MISTAKE! This body IS OURS it use with complete freedom! False teeth are OK. You / I will never be asked to sacrifice ANYTHING by OUR FATHER!!
For me, the journey continued through the realities of my own choices. Most important that I must ACCEPT the faith I have in JESUS AS OUR SAVIOR, Beyond any doubt, and live accordingly.
Included in the first medical report is an experience from earlier life. Confronted by three who made threatening gestures I moved to the middle of a small crowd of people, one came forward and again moved/ acted in threatening ways. I was able to gain time to search for an answer and remembered, "the bible writes "love thy enemy" and at they moment chose to do so. SUDDENLY "in the vision of my mind" a light like no other appeared above me, coming down to me, and I needed only to raise my arms to receive it. As I began a voice from nowhere said, "what if your wrong"? And I thought, and the light stopped, I then assumed my opportunity was over, "too late", but the light remained until I became hesitant and then it returned. I was angry, sad, happy, etc for a very short time thereafter. Angry that I let the influence of others affect me, sad that so great an opportunity was lost, happy that I was noticed, and more. I am sorry to say poor/ wrong choices ensued. Not every situation can be dealt with through love, but everyone should have their dignity left intact.
The final journey written of me in medical records concerns the 23rd psalm. The question being: "is this correct"? Because my answer is different, from the church, as a step by step walk through the descriptions given by the psalm. Compared to the rest of the bible, it will be withheld. My purpose is NOT to disrupt, but I will write; the 23rd psalm is a part of the old testament, when JESUS came, the old testament changed and JESUS BECAME OUR SAVIOR! NOT the 23rd psalm.
Regarding the experience to me, I entered willingly, the journey required more than expected but, did not harm me, at its end I was given the choice: my pride or a serious mistake. I CHOSE to throw away pride!
To these I will add one other event, some years later while traveling many, many, little things began to go wrong. After/ by the third day I became certain something was wrong with me, looking closely, I found I was turning cold (not being as compassionate as I want to be, rather reacting to the ways I had been treated). Upon realizing my life as I have chosen it to be, and has been given to me to be, needed fixing, I quickly returned to people are important, and I do desire to be accepted. If, you do not live within/ you live outside.
These answers are NOT question. These answers are the FREEDOM of my soul, to inquire within my choice, my life, and my experience. These answers are my own, and do NOT need approval! These answers do demonstrate REASONING AND LOGIC, whether there is agreement over their validity or not. IF you can not fully define life, & death, & eternity and produce demonstrative results that clearly, undeniably (in terms the average person can identify with) provide evidence for your position ( whatever that may be); then the beliefs', my own ways, and the issues they represent, can not be denied or ridiculed, or used in any way against me. As that is/ would be slander, defamation or character, harassment and so forth! This is a clear warning The question: who decides, who determines, the soul? James F. Osterbur
ITEM #80
Recopied for electronic transmission space
Gen # 4-93-0847
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF
STATE OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAMES OSTERBUR Appeal from the circuit court of the sixth judicial circuit champaign county, IL
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT Trial court 92-c-1222
The honorable J. G. Townsend
VS. Judge presiding
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
Motion for a pre-trial conference
Now comes Covenant medical center, by its attorneys, Thomas Mamer, Haughey, and moves this honorable court to dismiss the appeal filed in this matter or in the alternative to schedule a pre-hearing conference and in support of said motion states as follows:
1. The plaintiff, James Osterbur, the appellant in this matter ( hereafter simply "plaintiff"), has represented himself pro se at the trial court level and is now attempting to appeal the decision of the trial court also pro se.
2. The plaintiff has filed documents which apparently the appellate court has to this point accepted as a docketing statement, along with a brief.
3. The defendant, Covenant medical center, has received a document titled "pre-trial documents to case number 92-c-1222, now gen number 4-93-039, Osterbur, v. Covenant medical center, plus remainder of trial 92-c-1222 not included in brief". It is assumed that this document purports to be the report of proceedings and/ or record required to be filed.
4. the court has ruled that the appellee's brief is due to be filed on or before December 17, 1993.
5.The plaintiff's "brief" does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (1) in that it does not include points and subpoints in the argument or citation of authorities as required.
6. The appellant's brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (2) in that there is no statement of the nature of action.
7. The brief provided does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (3) in that it does not provide a statement of the issue or issues presented for review.
8. The brief provided does not comply with IL supreme court rule 341 (e) (4) in that it does not provide a brief statement or explanation or the jurisdictional basis of appeal, except to cite two irrelevant portion of the United States constitution.
9. The brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (5) in that to the extent this brief questions the operation of certain statutes or constitutional provision, those provisions are not provided or cited.
10. The brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (6) in that there is no coherent statement of facts included in the brief and certainly no reference to any pages of the record on appeal by which the defendant could discern the context or chronology of the "facts" scattered throughout the brief.
11. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (7) in that the argument as provided does not explain the reasons for the contentions of the appellant or any citation to any authorities or any references to any pages of the record relied on.
12. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (8) in that there is no conclusion and no statement of the precise relief sought by the plaintiff through this appeal.
13. Contrary to Ill supreme court rule 342, there is no appendix to the brief.
WHEREFORE, the defendant states that it is incapable of responding to the matter now on appeal in its present form and requests that the appeal be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted David E. Krchak
In the alternative, the defendant requests under Il supreme court rule 310 that the court appoint a judge who will not participate in the decision of the case to preside at a pre-hearing conference to attempt to discern the issues which the plaintiff wishes to be heard on appeal.
RE-TYPED TO CONSERVE ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
Gen no 4-93-0847
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
Of the state of Il, fourth district
JAMES OSTERBUR Appeal from the circuit court of the sixth judicial circuit champaign county, IL Trial court # 92-c-1222
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT the Honorable J. G. Townsend
Judge presiding
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Now comes the defendant, covenant medical center, by its attorneys, Thomas, Mamer, Haughey, and provides the following authorities in support of its motion to dismiss the pending appeal;
1. The brief filed in this matter resembles a number of briefs which the appellate court has ruled inadequate.
2. In Boeger vs. Boeger, 147 ILL, App. 3d 629, 498 ne. 2d 814, 101 Il dec. 490 (second district 1986), the court in referring to the appellants pro se brief stated:
"The brief in the present case is clearly inadequate. It contains no summary of points and authorities and no fact statement as such. The section entitled "argument" consists of a rambling, often disjointed recitation of facts, often with no apparent relevance to the present litigation. It contains no indication of what, exactly, are appellant's objections to the trial court's ruling and contains no citation of authority. The remainder of the brief consists of photocopies of various documents, many taken from the record in this cause. Their relevance to defendants argument is not explained. The appellate court dismissed the appeal.
3. In Waitcus vs. Village of Gilberts, 199 Ill app 3d 102, 556 ne 2d 1261, 145 IL dec. 359 (second district 1990), the court found the appellant's brief lacking and stated regarding a portion of the brief:
"This section of the brief is filled with conclusion and bits of facts but is totally devoid of any citation to case or statutory authority. In addition, no attempt at coherent argument is made. This section of the brief is entirely inadequate and we consider the contentions raised therein to be waived."
4. In the case Application of Anderson, 162 ILL. App 3d 815, 516 ne. 2d 860, 114 Ill dec. 705 (second district 1987), the court pointed out:
An appellant may not make a point merely by stating it without presenting arguments in support of it, and this court will not argue a case for an appellant. A court of review is entitled to have briefs submitted that are articulate, organized, and present cohesive legal argument in conformity with supreme court rules. Any issue which has not been adequately presented to this court for review may be deemed waived. (Citations omitted)
5. In Britt vs. Federal land Bank ass'n of St. Louis, 152 ILL app 3d 605, 505 ne. 2d 387, 106 IL dec 81 (second district 1987), the court commented:
While purporting to cite authority, generally, for what is set forth in their briefs as issues on appeal, plaintiffs have failed to comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (7). We do not view the inclusion of citations to irrelevant authorities scattered throughout their brief to constitute even an attempt to comply with the rule. In fact, plaintiff's briefs are nothing more than a compilation of disjointed and nonsensical claims and legal conclusions totally unsupported by citations to the record or relevant legal authority. We may treat the issues raised as having been waived for failure to cite authority.
6. The brief and other material filed by the plaintiff in this case could be aptly described by any of the four quotations from the appellate court decisions. Even disregarding the plaintiff's utter failure to follow Ill supreme court rule 341 (e), the appeal should be dismissed because neither the brief nor any other materials provided by the plaintiff explain why he is disagreeing with the trial court judge or what relief he is suggesting from the appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the defendant - appellee, covenant medical center, moves this court to dismiss the appeal.
Respectfully submitted David E Krchak
dated 28 of oct, 1993
Retyped for electronic transfer space
No 4-93-0487
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAMES OSTERBUR Appeal from circuit court of champaign
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLANT county No 92c1222
V. Honorable John G. Townsend
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER judge presiding
DEFENDANT/ APPELLEE
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed documents which are purportedly a record and a brief for purposes of this appeal. The record is not certified by the circuit clerk and appears to consist of documents from the plaintiff's personal files. Likewise, the brief which plaintiff has submitted does not comply in any respect with the form and contents of briefs as required by supreme court rules 341 through 344.
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion for a pre-trial conference. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion.
UPON CONSIDERATION, the court concludes that the brief filled by appellant is grossly insufficient under supreme court rules. A litigant appearing pro se in the appellate court is obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel. (Bohanan v. Schwartz (1974), 21 IL. app 3d 149, 315 ne. 2d 316) Plaintiff's failure to file a coherent brief renders review impossible.
ACCORDINGLY, the motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed.
Appeal DISMISSED.
ENTERED: November 5, 1993
BY ORDER OF THE COURT CONSISTING OF THE PANEL OF : John T. McCullough/ Carl A. Lund/ Robert J. Steigmann
ITEM #81
{THESE ARE STATEMENTS SENT WITH THE APPEAL 4-93-0847, AS A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE CASE ARE EXPECTED TO BE}
AMENDED CASE 92-C-1222
APPEAL 4-93-0847
The opportunity to discover constitutional basis and LAW as it applies specifically to case 92-c-1222
The request: to receive instruction, by the court regarding SPECIFIC constitutional issues.
The question: Define, Bill of Rights, section 3 "that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community...."
As it applies to: Jurisdiction between man/woman and/or corporate entity regarding the SIMPLE RIGHT to contest any inaccurate billing practice and/or bill in question.
As it applies to: The RIGHT of an individual to contest billing and/or billing practice which occurs WITHOUT, FREE ENTERPRISE DECISIONS (accident, emergency, etc).
As it applies to: The defense of a citizen, from monetary imprisonment due to matters which were NEVER, A FREE ENTERPRISE DECISION.
The question: Define, Bill of Rights, section 1, "That all mem are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights....."
As it applies to: The right of an individual to contest errant/wrongful decisions through appropriate "peer review" OR by the court; in reasonable, but simple language.
As it applies to: Definitions, terminologies, or other, which significantly affect the personal freedom, and enjoyment of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (terminology exists to label people NOT a definition of life, an encroachment).
The question: Define, the Bill of Rights, section 1 "inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
As it applies to: The reality that men/women DO lose everything, NOT by FREE enterprise, but by criminal abuse, accident, emergency and so on. It is allowed, even though medical bills (majority) are NOT FREEWILL CHOICES. Is it then correct, that a citizen UNDER SEIZE, IS PROTECTED?
As it applies to: The need for assistance, Is a citizen protected from needless loss of life and limb? (within reasonable boundaries)
The question: Constitution of the United States, "We the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union,....."
As it applies to: Law, Does a citizen have a right, the government an obligation, to redefine LAW, for the betterment of society?
The question: Constitution........."establish justice,......"
As it applies to: The right of each citizen to court proceedings and FAIR appraisal of services rendered.
The question: Constitution "we the people..."
As it applies to: Significant UNREST, DO to burdens placed upon men/women which clearly become oppression, without their freewill consent, through medical trauma! The significant reality is NEED VS POWER. The human body needs, the difference between health and loss of life, substantial wholeness, or the ability to work and thereby survive, IS/CAN BE dependent upon someone else. The DISTINCTION of power, comes only when this NEED enables or entitles specific persons or entities opportunity to greatly alter another persons' life. LIFE AND DEATH trauma for which, A REASONABLE CURE is exempt, (not available) is BEYOND a man/womans' intervention. Situations capable of producing adequate recovery, as perceived by the majority, are the decisions that apply.
A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE therefore becomes: IS a citizen in medical trauma deserving of the designation "HOSTAGE" OR does citizenship have NO meaning here.
IF citizenship is a RIGHT, then fundamental defense is REQUIRED. That SHALL include: The right to proper treatment, the right to prenatal care, the right to FAIR billing and billing procedures, the right to appropriate emergency treatment IF facilities and staff are available (it IS a personal decision to live apart, a long distance from help). IF the citizen is a HOSTAGE, held within a situation, NOT as a result of, or chosen by, RATHER engaged in a physical, mental, emotional, and monetary war for their own existence by/from outside enemies, which restrict and control that citizens' life, THEN, IS THIS CITIZEN ANY LESS worthy of the pledge written within the Declaration of Independence "...and for support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE providence, WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
IS an internal fight for life, liberty, or the pursuit of FREEDOM, through HEALTH, any LESS, than the cause for these: the citizens' demand for equal protection, civil rights, educational guarantees'? The defense of a citizen, defines what governments are for. The reality of medical trauma IS: I AM ATTACKED!
IF justice is applied: WHAT IS FAIR?
Is it FAIR: To demand opportunity to contest any inappropriate billing or billing procedure in a simple dispute, when health allows?
Is it FAIR: To allow and require patients adequate voice and opportunity to describe their treatment to other patients within the hospital environment, public access, open viewed??
Is it FAIR: That billing MUST BE apportioned to wealth, this bill WAS NOT a free enterprise decision NOR desired, by free will choice (elective surgery does NOT apply). THEREFORE by percentage of wealth everyone shares, NO one loses everything? We are all equally at risk, we are all EQUAL as people, wealth must not divide?
It is FAIR: To walk away from treatment with dignity and honor intact, by accepting treatment and its payment at a FAIR SHARE COST?
It is FAIR: To believe that the poor and middle class, ARE THE SOLDIERS, PAY FOR GOVERNMENT, AND BUILD THIS SOCIETY, BECAUSE if they provide the BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS; the rich can provide their FAIR SHARE, at least, in this one area? (if you make the money in this country, exiting to another country WILL NOT, eliminate your billed)!
It is HONEST to say: Every man/woman/parent who has found need for services provided by someone else has DIGNITY (which is: an honest desire to repay, and an equal opportunity to do so) UNTIL they or someone else, TAKE it away.
It is FAIR: To say to society, which DOES want medical services available that they MUST pay for EQUIPMENT which EVERYONE has access to, and buildings specific to need, NOT "gold plated".
It is FAIR: To describe the doctor, hospital Monopoly, as necessary, BUT, it is also FAIR to say MONOPOLIES ARE AND MUST BE, CONTROLLED BY LAW?
It is FAIR: To acknowledge medical staff as deserving salaries which reflect; STRESS, exposure to disease, unreasonable expectations and so on, BUT it is NOT FAIR for patient charges which DO NOT reflect time spent, results achieved, care given, WITHIN realistic wage parameters? This IS NOT A FREE ENTERPRISE SITUATION!
It is FAIR: That billing disputes are heard in a "public forum" atmosphere, WITHOUT LEGAL complications? To do this each side MUST publicly disclose their description of the facts. IF a fair settlement cannot be reached, THEN to court, But NO information obtained in this FORUM can be used within court because legal counsel was NOT ALLOWED.
It is FAIR: That NO INSURANCE be allowed for anyone within the aforementioned area's, those areas NOT covered such as; transplants, AIDS, (those medical problem's which shall not affect the vast majority) CAN BE COVERED, by insurance, NO personal insurance means, pain relief, But NO heroic's. It is an HONEST evaluation, the money will go to research for an adequate cure, rather than a painful, expensive and short extension of life in BONDAGE?
It is FAIR: TO REQUIRE every not-for-profit organization to establish and maintain an OPEN, EASY ACCESS method of accounting WITH FREE PUBLIC ACCESS at all/for all area's they oversee NO EXCEPTIONS. FAILURE to control cash, giveaways, or billing costs means an end to NOT for profit, status?
It is FAIR: To say those who appear at the emergency room door ACCEPT the necessary services they NEED, AND shall pay/owe for services rendered, at a FAIR RATE. DOOR signatures ARE A FAILURE of the court, as they are signatures UNDER DURESS and thereby INVALID? IF the patient can decide and make it known, they will choose, If they can NOT the medical staff determines? Children Belong to the parent(s).
{INFERRED: appearance at the emergency door, IS acceptance of the service}
It is FAIR: That everyone receives equal treatment IN ALL AREA'S, to do so means NO wealth is involved or described in any way throughout the hospital stay .
It is FAIR: To require a percentage of wealth to each specific operation, RATHER than a fixed rate?
It is FAIR: To cause doctors in a hospital environment, clinic, or multi-doctor, "business" to share? By causing/giving ALL PATIENTS the honest title of HUMAN BEING. THEREFORE, each has received the same treatment, paid the same, "fair share cost"; REGARDLESS of wealth, and those doctors who treat the poor ARE ENTITLED to the same reimbursement as those doctors who treat the rich?
It is FAIR: To acknowledge there are LIMITS, and to describe these limits to medical treatment within the reality of every citizen PAYS through the taxes which provide buildings, equipment, and services; THEREFORE every citizen has a RIGHT to expect these assets shall be reasonably kept and available when needed NOT SPENT, BUT INVESTED within physical realities which shall in return, HONESTLY BENEFIT?
{INFERRED: some people are past medical help, and should not be interfered with in their time to died}
It is FAIR: That the public shall VOTE 76y7y6upon what a citizens RIGHTS ARE as viewed within a medical catastrophe?
It is FAIR: That research money be apportioned to NEED? The greater the number of people afflicted by serious illness, the GREATER the percentage of money used for that research?
It is FAIR: To INFORM THE PUBLIC, about the RISK involved, in all experimental medicine, particularly altering genetic instruction? And then, allow the people to DECIDE BY VOTE?
Is it FAIR: For the U.S. government to demand less than the common citizen, OR is it RIGHT to say; IF the government acknowledges wrongful actions exist should they NOT be expected to rectify that matter for the PUBLIC, instead of for the government ONLY?
It is FAIR: That the common citizen, WITHOUT a police record, being involved in a violent crime should NOT NEED to pay the largest portion of their medical bill. That the largest portion of said bill DOES belong to the society and therefore the society through taxes MUST PAY?
It is FAIR; That institutions which train medical doctors and paramedics and staff, MUST open their doors to educate all who are capable and do demonstrate HONEST DESIRE?
It is FAIR: To say to doctors, nurses, and other personnel that the cost of THEIR education (NOT living expenses) will be ACCEPTED BY THE PUBLIC; But they will be asked to accept locations based upon public need for 5 out of the first 10 years of their working career? NO buyout, MUST work among locations chosen from at least 20 different possibilities? The price of tuition! PLUS a reasonable salary and housing.
ITEM #82 STATE APPEALS 4-93-0441
APPELLATE COURT/ 441
DATE 8/30/93
RECORD
RE: Cole, Johanna S v. Osterbur, Jim
General # 4-93-0441
Champaign county
Trial # 92=s=2991
(transcribed from handwritten)
A formal complaint, as well as compliance,
is hereby registered: I, James F. Osterbur, the appellant do hereby protest the
order of the court, in that, I have received this order only 4 working days
prior to its due date. I do further protest Justice is the result of truth
& reality, NOT rules. I , as pro se, seek justice NOT denial, due to
punctuation, etc. Public justice should be: user friendly NOT lawyer friendly.
I do as well ask a formal explanation of
rule 343: the illinois supreme court in an order entered nov 9, 82YY.unless within 14 days of the entry date of that orderY.. The question: do I or do I not have 14 days to comply? Judgment for
the taped record begins on pg 73 line 21. Judge clem declares:Y@that the court judicially notices that the definition of fraudY.@ Pg 73 line 24 pg 74 line 1, as well as pg 74 line
2-13.
Judgment for the taped recordY.pg 74 line 17-20Y..@he knew that this was not a new motor, it was
a rebuilt motor@Y
Judgment for the taped record: pg 74 lines 21-24, Y..@almost new transmission, although the
transmission would then have had approximately 43,000 miles on it; and that it
had nearly new brakesY@
Judgment for the taped record; pg 75 line 3, Y.@should have known.@
Judgment for the taped record; pg 75 line 10-13Y@if they=re not true, then she=s entitled to compensation.@
(a)APPEALED on the grounds: ms. Cole received $300 for damage to the engine she inflicted herself, pg 15 line 10-24 and pg 16 line 1-24. Ms cole also received engine repair from damage she caused, for the cost of the parts, pg 17 line 1-24, pg 18 lines 1-5.
Judgment for the taped record; pg 75 line 14-19 Y..@the motor failed because it was old@..
Judgment for the taped record:Y..@false statements were made@ pg 75 line 21.
Judgment for the taped record: pg 75 lines 23-24 Athe witnesses who aren=t here@
Judgment for the taped record: pg 76 line 3 Y.@a qualified mechanic who testified.@
Judgment for the taped record; Y.@no agreement to accept that in total satisfaction of all of the problems wrong with the carY.@ Pg 76 lines 16-19.
Judgment for the taped record: pg 76 lines 19-21 Y..@which was what it would take to reach an accord and satisfaction.
Judgment for the taped record; Y@judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $1200 plus court cost@ pg 77 line 1-3
SUMMARY: upon critical examination NO one is perfect. Use of the judge, is made to represent the simple statements made against me are not, in their entirety as they appear. A motion was delivered to the judge, intent upon proving or disproving TAMPERING; which he denied without reading! James F. Osterbur
STATE OF ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT 4TH DISTRICT
8/31/93
RE: cole, Johanna s. V. Osterbur, Jim
Gen# 4-93-0441
Table of contents (trial)
Witnesses Johanna S. Cole direct examination pg 4, cross examination pg 13
Richard Adair direct examination pg 25 cross examination 41
Exhibit #1 newspaper advertisement
Timothy Swigart direct examination 50 cross examination 54, re-direct 57 plaintiff rests
Danny Osterbur direct examination by Osterbur 59, Jim Osterbur direct, by the court 59 cross by Ms. Cole 71
Defendant rests.
Table of contents (appeal) pg # refer to appeal transcript/ pg # in
appeal refer to trial transcript
Formal complaint pg 1 , judgment reviewed pg 2-22, judgment FRAUD 2-4, appealed (never accused) 2(a), cause delivered (judge=s own accusation) 3 (b), cause answered (damage done) 3(c) appealed (NO warning) 3 (d), cause shown (NO evidence) 4 (e), judgment misinformation 4-5, appealed (was informed) 4 (a), judgment erroneous information 5-6, cause (defined) 5 (a), appealed (defendant corrected error at his own cost) 5 (b), judgment should have known 6, appealed (was corrected) 6 (a) , judgment entitled 7, appealed (received) 7 (a) judgment accusation 7 :
APPEALED: APROOF IDENTIFIED 7a / irrelevant testimony 8b/ warranty exclusion 8c/ cause (warranty issue void) 8 d/ no warranty extension 9e/ plaintiff voided warranty 9f / problem identified 10g/ proof delivered 10h/ judgment (false statements) 10-13/ evidence examined 10a / cause (should have known) 11 b/ cause (plaintiff acknowledges new motor) 12c/ judgment (no witness) 13-14 / cause delivered 13a/ cause (no warranty, no reason) 14b / Judgment qualified mechanic 14-15/ irrelevant 14a / cause (should have known )14 b / cause (BIAS) 14c / cause (damage done) 14 d / judgment total satisfaction 15-17/ not relevant 16 a/ cause identified 16 b / contributed 16 c / cause (responsibility) 16 d / NO physical evidence 17 e/ cause (previous attempt denied, proved false) 17 f/ judgment satisfaction 17-19 / bias 18 c/ cover up 18 b / cause (defendant proves) 19 c / cause (cover up to judge) 19 d / requiring cross examination judgment NO expense 20-22 / unfair 20 a / cause (testimony ) 20 b / cause ( prejudice, bias, unprotected accusations)/ summary (dismissal) 22
Costs: 6 hours of the defendants time @ $15 per hour total $90 dollars
Transcript of trial (some pages)
State of Illinois supreme court supreme court building , Springfield IL 62706
Jim Osterbur defendant pro se vs Johanna S. Cole plaintiff pro se
Linda s Frank, circuit clerk champaign courthouse
Darryl Pratscher clerk of appellate court 4th district
Gen # 4-93-0441 champaign county # 92-s-2991
(transcribed from handwritten)
I, James F. Osterbur, do hereby acknowledge and submit for consideration this petition for leave to appeal
I do Pray (a forced term) the judges charges to uphold the highest court in the state of Illinois shall hear my complaint, acknowledge my right , and uphold justice as the rightful cause and true purpose of the court!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO enclose a copy of the order of the appellate court, DISMISSED upon the date, sept 2, 93 . I, do hereby state, I ,James F. Osterbur made known to judge clem and the plaintiff during the motion trial an appeal would be filed (initial proceedings) dated may 11, 93 pg 5 line 7,8. I do now make known an appeal to the state supreme court is made sept 21, 93. Original trial date april 21, 93 Champaign county courthouse. Trial 92-s-02991 gen 4- 93- 0441
A statement of the points relied upon JURISDICTION reversal of the appellate court decision rests upon constitutional issues as follows:
(a) reliance for this argument is based within and upon the bill of rights as follows : section 5: Athat the legislative and executive powers of the state shall be separate and distinct from the judiciaryY@ AS INTERPRETED; Athat the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciaryY.@ AS INTERPRETED: laws and the right of rule, belong to the legislature and executive powers. Laws, or the obligation of the people, or rights of the people, are STRICTLY established by the legislature and executive powers. THE JUDICIARY MUST COMPLY within the limits and intent of law. Section 6:Y..@nor bound by any law to which they have not , in like manner, assented, for the public good.@ AS INTERPRETED: IF, the clear and distinct law, handed down by the legislative or executive powers does not exist, THEN the judiciary HAS exceeded its authority: Anot to apply rules of conduct; RATHER to conceive issues of procedure or infractions of rule, greater than JUSTICE!
Section 7: that all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, BY ANY AUTHORITY, without the consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights, and ought NOT to be exercised. AS INTERPRETED: the CLEAR AND DISTINCT description of ; who determines who is in charge, and why. Section 15 that no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. AS INTERPRETED: Justice, IS A RIGHT, anything which alters that RIGHT, is to be abolished. Section 2: that all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, THE PEOPLE; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them. AS INTERPRETED: WE THE PEOPLE DO grant the right and rule of law, for the purpose of justice, peace, and security; the duty given to the court is: to preserve, honor, and protect. Those justices unwilling to do their best, do NOT honor their position, and should be REMOVED!
The term DUE PROCESS, is common and needs NO further referencing to complete an understanding within a court of law.
3.Argument is made: Afails
to provide YYa
coherent factual backgroundY.@
Appellate brief DOES indeed take a step by step examination of the trial and Judgment using actual trial statements. Pg 21, of the appellant brief: AY.this accusation is supported by reproducible evidence and eyewitness. This therefore must be considered adequate as any/all trial is entirely based within these REASONABLE CLAIMS.
This small claims court case represents a very simple, discipline of the court: to provide equal access, an adequate hearing, JUSTICE described by EQUAL TREATMENT. The office of judge requires a minimal comprehension of the law. NO citation was given BECAUSE, NO citation was needed.
This appellant has NO complaint regarding the same rule theory, BUT this appellant does complain regarding the very issue pg 1,2, of the appellant brief requesting clarity of rule, for which the appellate court justices DENIED by means of omission. The appellant DOES suggest copies of such rules as apply to procedure SHOULD be handed out by court upon request.
Appellant has received NO EVIDENCE from the appellate court which supports this decision; RULES that apply Aa coherent description of the pertinent parts of the provision verbatim@.
(1) FOR CLARITY: NO objection was raised to the mechanics testimony because, a current mechanical state was acceptable to the defense, HOWEVER use of current data as a description of 20 months prior to, by the judge was NEVER expected as it is an obvious ERROR!
STATE OF ILLINOIS, SUPREME COURT
9/09/93
RE: Cole, Johanna S. v. Osterbur , Jim
TO THE COURT BRIEF
A trial initiated over an extended warranty period. Defendant decrees, NO warranty given 18 months too long.
Trial judge : for the record, becomes the prosecuting attorney and accuses defendant of fraud, PLAINTIFF NEVER DID.
Appellate court; DISMISSED, thereby failing (as stated in abstract) to provide appellant DUE PROCESS. James F. Osterbur
TABLE OF CONTENTS: SUPREME COURT 9/05/93
RE: GEN # 4-93-0441
List of grievances pg 1, supporting authority 2, respect 3, justice defined by constitution 4, rebuttal/ request for supporting authority from the court 5, court authority challenged 6, an oral contract 7, court disregard for rights of a public citizen 8, exclusive privilege 9 , tyranny defined 10, summary 11, justice defined by appellant 12,
STATE OF ILLINOIS, SUPREME COURT
9/05/83
RE: gen #4-93-0441 trial # 92 Bs- 2991
TO THE COURT: an abstract, in response to dismissal 9/2/93
I, James F. Osterbur, DO respond to stipulations, which are unjust, an oral contract broken, and claims for supporting authority waived, and the disregard for justice hidden within the words: Asubstantial failure of appellant to comply@.
Therefore I , James F. Osterbur, shall seek higher authority. It is my right to expect reasonable treatment, within the constitution, as provided for, by the citizens of the United States of America. I am a citizen and shall recite to YOU the framework description upon which the constitution is based:
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 court is reminded the individual public citizen IS its only duty! The citizenry is the government, and the public citizen is: its official, its soldier, and its supporter. With respect to government documents Aa declaration, july 4, 1776@ a passage reads: he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public goodY..for the sole purpose of fatiguing themY.a mock trial.
It is from the bill of rights, section 3: that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is BEST which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. And again.
Section 15; that NO free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
I, DO hereby declare, the appellate courts= , order filed 9/02/93
dismissing gen #4-93-0441 FAILS to conform to the doctrines granted by
legislatures of these United States of America. Further; the bill of rights, section
7; that all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any
authority without the consent of the representatives of the people, is
injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised. Section 7 reads
clearly to the pleadings in question whereby I, a public citizen, come seeking
justice, am TURNED AWAY for slight procedural faults. IS THIS JUSTICE? The
question represented in section 7 IS: did the representatives of the United
States of America grant any authority, to determine rules , whereby Justice is
dismissed without due process? The only defense for this action; Adid the appellant refuse to
comply? He DID comply, only to be dismissed for rules left unmentioned in the
court order. As to compliance of the documents themselves; I, James F.
Osterbur, do hereby testify that I called the Aclerk
of the court at (217) 782-2586@
(the appellate court), regarding the mailing of said document and purposely
asked that representatives of the clerks=
office, IF Athere is
anything out of place or in error regarding these paper, will the court, send
me notice so that I may correct them/ prior to judgment@? That representative, declared to me, AYES if something is amiss,
I would receive opportunity to correct before judgment is made. I DO hereby
declare; Aif not for
these words I would have driven to Springfield to the court, to be certain,
everything was in order. I , James F. Osterbur DO hereby declare, I accepted
those words as an oral contract with the court! DUE PROCESS therefore becomes a
part of the appeals proceedings, as well as the original trial in that: A a person is entitled to be
informed of all, ( and protected from) UNFAIR ACTS and procedures.@
Within the brief, issued by the appellant, was a
formal complaint and request for clarity, regarding the appellants rights,
through the court, which was NEVER addressed in their dismissal, why not? The
court claims, failure to provide any citations to any authority, or a coherent
factual background, yet these magistrates fail their own test. Have I, a public
citizen, NO right to inquire regarding the law and its interpretation? ARE
court officials entitled to exclusive personal decisions OR must they address
the public as citizens themselves, no greater than! It was written; that all
men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rightsY.pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety. JUSTICE redefines law as that which is capable of
producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually
secured against the danger of mal-administration; for the public! Rules solely
for the benefit of court officials become tyranny, as shown within the simple
words: Athe court
deems appellants response to the rule insufficient and orders the appeal
dismissed for failure to comply with supreme court rules.@
Regarding the failure to cite supporting authority: it was expected that the issue of justice was sufficient, and the JUDGE competent to understand. James F. Osterbur.
IN SUMMARY; factual evidence, the transcript of trial 92-s-2991 WAS present. Coherent factual background defined by documents presented by the appellant were presented, and do show specific instances of error in judgments, made by the presiding judge. The claim for DUE PROCESS: Ato be informed of all charges against the defendant@ IS CLEAR and needs no further supporting authority. THAT JUSTICE IS GREATER, than ANYTHING which the court has alleged, IS BEYOND DOUBT!
JUSTICE is not the decision of man, it is the reality of honest work, fair trade, and truth before self James F. Osterbur a RESULT, not a rule.
Fundamental justice is a right! The need for definition of these words is appalling. I would offer to the court a simple statement: what would the framers of the constitution say to you, if this case represents what they worked and died for?
I, James F. Osterbur, asked for justice, adequately defined all legal violations as pertains to this case. Have stated damages, unusable evidence and lack of due process, in NO uncertain terms. Yet all the appellate court can offer is dismissal based upon a slight infraction of a minor procedural mistake. It is beyond doubt, Athose who defend this nation, that it may live up to the words,@ Afor which it stands, A DID NOT/ DO NOT fight and die for this. The purpose of law and government is CLEAR: to define and adhere to standards that are acceptable to the vast majority, and to allow reasonable freedom to all. The purpose of a judge: is to identify that standard, uphold it, and fight to keep it true, to the stated goals of the people. FREEDOM is not perfection; FREEDOM IS EQUALITY, NOT conformity beyond necessary limits! James F. Osterbur.
TO THE SUPREME COURT
I,Y., do submit these papers as a Afair and accurate statement of the facts@. IF you should find the statements inappropriate to the words Awithout argument or comment@ I do pray for opportunity to correct! My personal view, Afair and accurate are sustained@ and of greater cause than, Awithout argument or comment@ as it may preclude a complete understanding! JUSTICE without understanding is not justice, reprints of law apply but will define further if necessary.
SUPREME COURT 9/15/93
I,Y., having considered the matter carefully do state: it is my desire to obtain justice. I am defending myself, and have encountered an extremely unfriendly court system, as it applies to JUSTICE FOR ALL. It is my decision at this time, to call for justice, by the honest method of informing the court to the best of my ability, as to this case, and expecting justice. As has been presented.
SUPPORTING LAW
Illinois constitution from the preamble 1970
3. supreme law, constitution constitution is supreme and whatever the purpose of people in placing restriction upon legislation, it must be obeyed; any legislative action contrary to constitution is unconstitutional and voidYY.statutes and rules of court cannot confer constitutional rights [people v. wenger 1976 1 Ill dec. 306] ..the constitution is the supreme law, and every citizen bound to obey it, and every court is bound to enforce its provisions, leaving court no discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision according to his judgment as to its wisdom or whether public good will be subserved by disregarding itY..
4. purpose, constitution the purpose of constitutional provisions is to protect every citizen in his personal and property rights against the arbitrary action of any person or authorityY..
5. grant or limitation, constitution constitution is not grant of but a limitation on legislative power, which otherwise extends to every subject within scope of civil government
CONSTITUTION OF 1970 ART. 1 & 2
Adue process@ is an orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the caseYY..conforming to fundamental rules of right and affecting all persons alike, is due process of lawY.
108. A fair trial under due process of law requires
an impartial judge free from personal conviction as to guilt or innocence of
the accusedY
JUDICIARY 705 ILCS 5/6 OATH OF OFFICE
I do solemnly swear ( or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of judge of the supreme court of the state of Illinois, according to the best of my ability.
APPELLATE DISMISSAL 8/26/93
Aappellant ruled to show cause, on or before 9/2/93, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file brief as required by rules 342 and 343. Failure to comply with these rules will result in dismissal of appeal@.
# 4-93-0441 in the appellate court ORDER
In response to a rule entered YY.document does not comply with supreme court rules 341 through 344 concerning form and content of briefs, the manner of filing and the number of copies to be provided Y..fails to provide any citationsYY..or a coherent factual backgroundY..violates ..rule 341 (e) (7). Y.in view of substantial failure of appellant to comply with supreme court rules concerning form and contentYYDISMISSED for failure to comply with supreme court rules.
Transcript of trial 92- s- 2991
To the court 10/4/93 case 92-s-2991 is still proceeding as state supreme
court case #76128 plaintiff has received notice of fillings citation is hereby
contested notification is required if the defendant must or need not appear of
Oct 13. James F. Osterbur
ITEM #83
RETYPED FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER SPACE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
supreme court building, springfield IL
date 03/ 04/94
RE: Cole, Johanna S. V. Osterbur, Jim
gen # 4-93-0441
champaign 92s02991
order filed 09/ 02/93
NOTICE I have today issued the mandate of this court in the above entitled cause, pursuant to the provisions of supreme court rule 368
Darryl Pratscher, clerk Appellate court fourth district
to Osterbur, Jim
Johanna S. Cole
Linda S. Frank (with mandate) circuit clerk, champaign county
Harry E. Clem (with information copy of mandate)
champaign county courthouse
101 E. main st
Urbana, IL 61801-2737
retyped for electronic transfer space
STATE OF ILL
APPELLATE COURT
fourth district, supreme court building, springfield IL
dated June 1, 1993
JIM OSTERBUR
JOHANNA S. COLE
LINDA S FRANK, circuit clerk, champaign county
RE: Cole, Johanna S. V. Osterbur, Jim
gen no 4-93-0441 Champaign 92s2991
The docketing statement in the above entitled cause was received and filed. On the court's own motion the due dates for filing in this cause have been accelerated under the authority of supreme court rule 343. This acceleration is based on the nature of the case and the comparatively short trial involved.
We expect to set this case for oral argument (if requested) during the month of Nov 1993. You are advised that ANY motions for extension of time are not favored and will be allowed by the court only in the most extreme and compelling circumstances.
In connection with this appeal, you attention is directed to the possibility of using an agreed statement of facts if appropriate.
Darryl Pratscher
Clerk appellate court, fourth district.
retyped for electronic transfer space
STATE OF ILL
APPELLATE COURT, FOURTH DISTRICT,
SUPREME COURT BUILDING, SPRINGFIELD IL 62701-1792
clerk of the court 217 782 2586 Research director 217 782 3528
DATE 08/ 26/ 93
RE; Cole, Johanna S. V. Osterbur, Jim
gen 4-93-0441
county champaign
trial no. 92s2991
to counsel:
I have today entered the following order of the court in the above entitled case:
Appellant ruled to show cause on or before 09/02/93, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file brief as required by rules 342 and 343. Failure to comply with these rules will result in dismissal of appeal.
Darryl Pratscher
to Jim Osterbur
Johanna S. Cole
retyped for electronic transfer space
No 4-93-0441
In the APPELLATE COURT OF ILL, FOURTH DISTRICT
JOHANNA S. COLE
PLAINTIFF/ APPELLEE
V.
JIM OSTERBUR
DEFENDANT APPELLANT
Appeal from circuit court of champaign county no 92s2991 Harry E Clem judge presiding.
ORDER
In response to a rule entered against appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file an appellate brief, appellant has provided the court with one copy of a document which purports to be his brief on appeal. The document does not comply with supreme court rules 341 through 344 concerning the form and content of briefs, the manner of filing, and the number of copies to be provided to the court and the parties to the appeal. Appellants "brief" also fails to provide any citations to any authority for the claims he raises or a coherent factual background by which these claims of error may reasonably be considered by the court. This too violates supreme court rule (e) (7). Arguments made without citation of supporting authority are deemed waived on appeal. Pauly v. Werries (1984), 122 ILL. app 3d 263, 461 NE 2d 54. Despite these failings, appellant complains that he is appearing pro se. Nevertheless the rule is clear that a litigant appearing pro se in the appellate court is obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel. Biggs v. Spader (1951) 411 ILL 42, 103 NE 2d 104; in re marriage of winters (1987), 160 ILL app 3d 277, 512 NE 2d 137.
In view of the substantial failure of appellant to comply with supreme court rules concerning the form and content of briefs, the court deems appellants response to the rule insufficient and orders the appeal DISMISSED for failure to comply with supreme court rules.
APPEAL DISMISSED ENTERED SEPT 2, 1993
ORDER OF THE COURT CONSISTING OF THE PANEL OF
Frederick S. Green/ Carl A. Lund/ Robert J. Steigmann
ITEM #84
NOTICE OF AN APPEAL
FILED MAY 20, 1993
COLE V. OSTERBUR
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
WHEREAS; A judgement has been filed against the defendant, Jim Osterbur, that shall be shown herein to be IMPROPER, BIASED, AND SLANDEROUS, to said cause.
Beginning with the summons filed Oct 2, 1992: comes the claim for warranty evaluation, a summons follows, Nov. 9, 1992. SPECIFICALLY there is NO MENTION of, "by factual statement" that, I, Jim Osterbur the defendant IS/WOULD BE accused of fraud by the plaintiff. IN FACT, said plaintiff NEVER accused myself, the defendant, at any time by direct statement of fraud. It will be later brought up.
Returning to the evidenced: page 6 line 3-10 the car was purchased in march of 1991 OVER 18 MONTHS prior to her filing a complaint in oct of 1992. Upon ATTEMPTING questioning that applies to WARRANTY pages 45 & 46 clearly define what I believe to be BIASED proceedings.
The plaintiff testifies page 10 line 6 and then line 8. She waited over 1 year after the decision to take me, the defendant, to court has been made line 18. The question remains WHY?
Plaintiff gives testimony regarding HER DECISION to inflict damage to the motor (DAMAGED: in such a way and manner that is EXCLUDED IN ALL NEW CAR WARRANTIES) QUOTE: Engine damage from running your engine without coolant isn't covered by your warranty: 1992 GM corporation.
Testimony begins pg 15 line 10! SPECIFIC to this testimony is, the question and answer, pg 16, lines 19-22! And pg 16 lines 1 & 2!
Testimony continues pg 17 lines 4-14 discredits plaintiffs selection of mechanical advice.
Testimony pg 17 lines 13-24 CLEARLY SHOW the motor specifically the cylinder walls were in "like new" condition. Further testimony such as pg 52, lines 8-24, pg 53, lines 1-2 are hereby declared NULL AND VOID as they describe conditions that appear over 1YEAR (pg 10 line 6, then pg 51 line 8) LATER!
Issues that affected "my decision" NOT to call the machinist to give testimony pg 62 line 7-11 are MONEY. To request travel, time, failure to be at his work, would cost money! Pg 19 lines 5-9 clearly indicates, REIMBURSEMENT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Pg 62 lines 12-14 simply acknowledge close family, as "seen by others" as NOT being IMPARTIAL.
FURTHER: THE LAW IS CLEAR regarding warranty issues. WARRANTY as defined by GM on rebuilt motors (their rebuilt motors) pg 56, line 24 is 12 months, or 12,000 miles whichever comes first. THIS ALONE according to LAW (in my opinion) was enough to cause DISMISSAL of this case before trial occurred.
The trial was granted WITHOUT a motion for dismissal BECAUSE pg 21 line 15-18 indicates a weapon, specifically the threat of a weapon, coupled with an angry person pg20 line 9-10 deserves to be incriminated in court, should foul play occur after a judgement against the plaintiff. SIMPLE EVIDENCE, should it be needed.
Evidence continued: pg 64-67 define the defendants explanation of the events which lead to, offering the plaintiff $300.00 for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of finding someone else, BY RELIEVING ANY/ALL obligation which could be attributed to me, as described by pg 67 lines 1-5, and substantiates pg 21 lines 8-9. Throughout the proceeding there can be NO DOUBT as to what the $300.00 was for, NOR that it was accepted within the CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of an agreement regarding motor replacement. Testimony pg 23, line 2-5, concur this was the agreement!
BEYOND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS: after paying $300.00 to alleviate my obligations WITHOUT the proper and REASONABLE opportunity to evaluate the motor, DUE entirely to the threatening manner of Richard Adair pg 29 line 9. I returned to again evaluate the car, the second time Ms Cole called, pg 67 line 11. At this time a proper evaluation was made AFTER she informed me SHE had overheated the motor. The motor was fixed at NO CHARGE except $50.00 in parts pg 17, line 13-14. Pg 31 line 24 and pg 32 line 1-2 state the prior mechanical description pg 17 lines 6-7 was completely erroneous.
Insofar as the issues regarding the transmission and brakes and CV joints are concerned, these things were the responsibility of the owner to divulge correctly. The information I, Jim Osterbur passed along was given to me by the owner's dad, Retired Bishop Ehme Osterbur, and I had NO reason to discount that information. Pg 59 does prove, the work was done, I am unaware of specifics involving the word "recently". Pg 61 line 7-16 describe in part how the car was delivered to me. It was "too good a car to just throw away, the transmission was recently rebuilt, and the brakes and the cV joints were replaced, DO anything you wish with the car". I, elected to rebuild the motor and charged Ms Cole accordingly. The price is higher than a "autozone" motor because more work was done to it. I do at this time point out, the first and only reference to transmission or brake mileage appears pg 59 line 21. Ms Cole is given the opportunity to ask questions pg 60 line 6 AND DECLINES pg 60 line 8. I the defendant did willfully introduce the problem with mileage that arose regarding the transmission and brakes, FULLY EXPECTING the judge could and would add/hear the difference. IT WAS NOT AN OVERSIGHT on my part, RATHER upon hearing a CHANGE in the story given me and desiring truth and fair play, I, EXPECTED to pay a REASONABLE sum, because of the 20,000 mile difference. To Ms Cole as what ,I, had told her was apparently incorrect! pg 61 lines 8-15
IRREGARDLESS of the actual mileage, I, had personally inspected the car before and after working on the motor to assure myself the transmission and brakes, etc were sound, THEY WERE. AFTER fixing the head gasket I test drove the car to assure myself the motor, transmission, and brakes were in good working order, THEY WERE!
The beginning of problems was a cut in a NEW radiator hose pg 63 line 3 and pg 68 line 15-18.
PROOF the motor was rebuilt was clearly shown to the plaintiff pg 69 line 5-15 and again pg 17 line 18-22
PROOF: the transmission and brakes were rebuilt was provided pg 59 line 22-24
PROOF of the EXCLUSION OF WARRANTY RIGHTS was defined by the dates provided by Ms Cole (bought March 91, summons appear October 92) a full 18 months after the car was purchased.
PROOF A willingness existed on the part of the defendant to provide assistance to the plaintiff upon being notified pg 20 line 9-18 NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE.
PROOF the motor was overheated by the plaintiff pg 15 line 10-24 and pg 16 line 1-22
PROOF not every mechanics evaluation is correct pg 17 line 9-22
PROOF the desire to control the defendant existed, pg 30 line 4-8
PROOF the defendants mechanical abilities exceeded that of the mechanics computerized list pg 31 line 24 pg 24 & pg 32 lin 1-2 AS SEEN WITHIN testimony pg 17 lines 3-22.
PROOF greed was NOT involved in the sale of this car pg 14 line 2-8.
PROOF the plaintiff made her own decision and had plenty of opportunity to seek her boyfriends advice or others pg 13 line 14-24.
PROOF the plaintiff (her boyfriend) made NO attempt to deal respectfully with the with the defendant pg 20, lines 14-24 and pg 21 lines 1-2
PROOF a transaction occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant SPECIFICALLY about the motor pg 22 line 14-24 (line 24 clearly indicates the extent of the work, although a question raised, was answered pg 72 line 18-21).
PROOF the mechanics testimony IS IRRELEVANT pg 51 line 1-7 as it CLEARLY INDICATES inspection occurred 20 months AFTER the car was bought.
PROOF an agreement by their mechanic that MOTORS CAN BE DESTROYED EASILY pg 52 line 7-8 and SUBSTANTIATES the defendants claim to have rebuilt the motor pg 52 line 24 and pg 53 line 1. WHEN PROPERLY VIEWED within the plaintiffs own testimony pg 17 lines 19-22.
PROOF Nothing was hidden by the defendant pg 17 line 15-16
PROOF warranty examination was quashed by the judge long before testimony by my witness or myself pg 45 line 21-24 and pg 46 line 1-7.
EVIDENCE OF BIAS
Pg 19 line 21-24 and pg 20 line 1-3 "IF there's something about this incident that involves Mr. Adair, that you think is pertinent you may bring it out"! ATTEMPTS were make to solicit this testimony pg 19 line 10-16 pg 20 and pg 21 line 1-10
Direct testimony by the defendant: spelling out pg 21 for the judge indirect involvement by Mr. Adair, and later as a Direct negotiator pg 30 line 4-8
Pg 21 line 21-24 and pg 22 line 1-12 EVERY EFFORT to portray the incident as confrontational and THEREBY a direct result of a preset agenda, described by Mr. Adair pg 30 line 6-7 JUDGE QUASHES pg 21 line 20-24 and pg 22 lines 1-12.
Defendant DECLARES: ALL reasonable efforts were made to obtain a FAIR AND SATISFACTORY agreement pg 21, line 11-12.
Judge IGNORES: relevant testimony regarding stated efforts to obtain a fair and satisfactory agreement (above) pg 21 line 21-24.
Judge declares: pg 22 line 8-11 relevant testimony given pg 22 lines 15-24 and pg 23 line 1-13
Relevant testimony DENIED: pg 21 line 21-24 and pg 22 lines 1-12 attempts were being directed toward the inclusion of motive, as to the suspected tampering pg 71 line 1-2.
Denial of testimony pg 44 lines 4-6 PERTINENT within the context of motive/tampering and so forth. Denied by judge pg 44 line 14-24 & pg 45 line 1-3
DEFENDANT ASKS for a definition pg 46 lines 4-5
JUDGE ENTERS FIRST JUDGEMENT in case against defendant. pg 46 line 6-7
Evidence of IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY; pg 51 line 8 DUE TO INSPECTION OCCURRING 20 MONTHS after the sale. SUBSTANTIATION of irrelevant testimony pg 56 line 22-24.
Testimony of closure by defendant pg 67 line 1-6. Testimony of Evidence to tampering pg 68 line 15-22.
PROVEN testimony as to the condition of the cylinder walls by defendant pg 69 line 6-16 SUBSTANTIATED by the plaintiff pg 17 lines 13-22 as of this date pg 10 line 6-7
TESTIMONY regarding further tampering pg 69 lines 17-24
Defendants summation pg 70 line 4-10
Testimony Every effort was made to produce a proper repair for the plaintiff in her presence pg 70 line 11-23
The courts decision: pg 73 line 13-20
It was the written opinion of the court that the motor could be considered as evidence 20 months after purchase, to its inspection date.
It is the defendants CLAIM: 20 MONTHS AFTER THE FACT, IS TOO LONG; THEREFORE testimony by the mechanic in question MUST BE STRICKEN!
It is a LEGAL FACT: WARRANTIES of any kind DO have expiration dates! THEREFORE the defendant DOES ASSERT IT WAS UNNECESSARY to incur expense or supine witnesses to testify to/against ILLEGAL testimony. Rather receipts and affidavits CLEARLY WERE ENOUGH!
Courts decision pg 74
The issue of FRAUD was NEVER brought up during the trial. The defendants ASSERTS: I was never accused by the plaintiff!
Courts decision pg 74 line 10-11
Initial damages were dealt with during trial pg line 10-24 & pg 16 line 1-22
Courts decision pg 74 line 18-20
The term new motor is interchangeable within the context of a 9 year old car with a complete rebuild defendants decryption pg 71 line 18-24 & line 72 line 1-2
Courts decision: pg 75 line 14-22
The defendant made NO false statements at any time! PROOF is in the voluntary and immediate and public statements that relate to the statements in question pg 59 and 60 and 61. The defendant ASSERTS he did the BEST he could with the information at his disposal and sought to voluntarily make amends for misinformation from others! Be it known: the defendants cousin Danny Osterbur was called on at least 2 occasions requesting any/all receipts regarding said work HOWEVER Danny Osterbur was unable to produce the receipts until called to court DUE to a change of residence which resulted in lost book-keeping.
Courts decision relies heavily on testimony of a mechanic who had NOT inspected the car prior to 20 months after purchase was made! pg 76 line 1-8.
Courts decision pg 76 line 9-21 ALL testimony directed OR GIVEN by the defendant IS DISREGARDED.
Docket entry: JUDGE ALLOWS 20 MONTHS FREE USE AND ABUSE of said vehicle by the plaintiff.
Motion denied pg 3 line 13-15 without even reading the motion.
SUMMARY BY DEFENDANT
Evidence exists regarding possible motive involved with tampering. Evidence was quashed by judge prior to it becoming testimony. Hard evidence as well as mileage MAY YET exist within the mechanical components of said car. JUDGE REFUSED to hand over a car which he had required the defendant to repurchase. A car which may hold ALL the evidence necessary to prove the defendant CORRECT BEYOND ANY DOUBT!
Judge defends actions by saying "motion trial, pg 3, line 24 and pg 4 line 1-5"
BECAUSE of the length of time the car was in the possession of the plaintiff the Defendant claims: there was NEVER a reason to believe it would be necessary to obtain further proof BEYOND: WARRANTY LIMITS (as established by New Car Dealerships)
Repayment as established by the motor agreement between plaintiff and defendant
WARRANTY EXCLUSION as established by New Car warranty guidelines (plaintiff overheating car, drives 15 miles further)
WHEREAS:
THE VERDICT RENDERED BY JUDGE HARRY E. CLEM
SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID!
by the defendant, James F. Osterbur
5/20/93
ITEM #85 CIRCUIT COURT 92-1222
THE DEFINITIONS OF CAUSE
I, James F. Osterbur, do hereby declare the cause and reason and situations, which have contributed to the search for individual , as well as, Societal JUSTICE; to insure such a journey need NOT be required of Me or any other person again.
Having entered into an emergency room of Covenant Medical Center experiencing physical distress, I, am completely dissatisfied with the results. This CASE is Not, Nor has it been, concerned with POOR TREATMENT, AS HAS been received by Me (EXCEPT), as it relates to improper billing practice.
This Case is a Clear description of unlawful, unreasonable, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL billing practices, of the medical profession as a whole.
As it pertains to unconstitutional, every attempt necessary to establish an HONEST relationship between the constitutional DECREE; 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,------do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America! And the Reality of UNREASONABLE, UNJUST, AND UNLAWFUL practice as described within the first, third, fourth, and fifteenth amendments, of the BILL OF RIGHTS. Consequent to this action, as applies to jurisdiction are the, second amendment, and seventh amendment.
THE CHARGE IS MADE, (UNCONSTITUTIONAL), because of the Realities involved, whereby; those individuals in need of life-threatening services can Not, protect themselves as any other citizen might, that contractual demands for payment, irregardless of a persons' ability to pay, as BASED within life-threatening medical terms, are UNJUST. That NO ONE ENTERS INTO SEVERE MEDICAL EMERGENCY BY CHOICE, therefore the claim, "you accepted the debt, now you must pay" is clearly ERRONEOUS! That medical emergencies are matters of invading forces and therefore DUE the protection of, the Citizenry at large (government).
Further it is hereby suggested: The medical hospital, as an entity, DOES effectively constitute a monopoly within the contest and commerce of medical emergencies, etc, (a patient in severe medical trauma, CANNOT ARGUE, in any manner, with regard to payment for services rendered, NOR, is there any adequate forum for the average reasonable citizen to complain to, seek billing adjustments from, or describe the adequacy of treatment received, for the public good. A list of billing costs, written (displayed) within the emergency room DOES NOT constitute good faith, nor does the court system in general, provide such a forum as it requires the average citizen to contend with a legal professional (lawyer), skilled in a specialized field, or to hire an alternate lawyer at prices far exceeding the average persons ability to pay.
While there may be evidence to show neither government nor hospital must provide a, "Fair and level playing field", there is Constitutional basis for, insuring domestic tranquillity, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The stated purpose of this Judicial exercise: To provide realistic billing, where the patient has RIGHTS, EQUAL TO, the hospital, doctor, etc!
The expected Resolution with regard to: How it may be so?
First: The requirement of a Public Forum between hospital and patient whereby the patient may contend over billing or treatment within a, "FAIR and LEVEL playing field", NOT the domain of obscure legal doctrine, RATHER, a peoples' court, where the average citizen may seek and obtain Justice through his/her own actions! Anyone unwilling to make public disclosure is unwelcome, payment to either party is limited to the bill in question, or part thereof. An exception may be granted to public disclosure by committee.
Second: Is to establish a "LINE OF DEFENSE", for the citizen at war with his/her own body. Meaning reasonable treatment in every arena, including billing practices.
Third: When at war, "Individually", or as a Nation, the Constitution allows and requires a national defense, as written within the Articles of Confederation, article 3, "The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against ALL FORCE offered to , or attacks made upon them, or any of them on account of religion, sovereignty, trade or ANY PRETENSE WHATEVER!
Although it may be argued these words were intended state to state: The REALITY of the United States of America, as intended, by the founders is clearly stated within the constitutional words: WE THE PEOPLE....!
Further declared as an individuals right to be protected from all methods of tyranny is the words: A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in general congress assembled July 4, 1776.
Among these words: He has refused his assent to laws the MOST WHOLESOME AND NECESSARY, for the public good.
And, according to their need and the intensity of their plight the last paragraph of these words do admit: We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the supreme JUDGE of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, DO, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies,....and, for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE providence, WE MUTUALLY PLEDGE TO EACH OTHER, OUR LIVES, OUR FORTUNES, AND OUR SACRED HONOR!
The words above DO speak to the mind and heart with words of HONOR, and respect for each persons situation. The words Do transcend unto the Realities of this day and time, and are needed to rectify the wrongs of this day! Within the scope of humanity and society and Justice are:
Why should an individual involved by chance, in an accident NO fault of their own, be required to lose every possession.
Why should an individual who has worked hard for every penny be bankrupt within a weeks hospital stay.
Why should the sanctity of body, mind, and the blessings of Citizenship be granted only to those with money; "I", consider it every individuals Right, as a citizen, to FAIR AND EQUITABLE treatment, especially as it regards LIFE AND LIMB AND REASONABLE HEALTH, a DUTY, of the Nation as a whole.
NOT experimental medicine
NOT replacing body parts
NOT Life support beyond which will restore a healthy person
NOT financial immunity
RATHER
The fixing of broken bones, emergency room procedures, pregnancy throughout, and so on, throughout every facility, at a PRICE that EVERY CITIZEN CAN AFFORD!
Fourth: is the establishment of a FAIR AND EQUITABLE cost of services rendered. TO BE FAIR, that cost can ONLY be determined by income (and shall become, NOT MORE THAN_______percent, of the average, of _______years income, apportioned to possessions).
Indeed every trip to the medical facility should be charged, as a relationship, to wealth. Hospitals Must be given Strict LAWS regarding, How much PROFIT will be allowed, (particularly with regard to medicine). Last doctors and hospitals may NO LONGER charge flat rates, rather WE should be charged according to service rendered, (IF the doctor stays only 5 minutes, then I expect to be charged for NO more than, the time I received, within the context of, SO MUCH PER HOUR), Just like, the VAST MAJORITY of the POPULACE.
Finally: There should be opportunity for a patient log, so to speak, displayed at the most prominent entry point which indicates the following;
DOCTOR type of care Patients response
good bad money etc
Patients are unnamed: Done as a statistical service to the community at large.
When life becomes a battle for health, society itself must view, that life, EVEN as a National symbol, for every Nation is the sum of its people. Clearly evidenced that, this is so, even at the highest levels, through three administrations, by the term and Reality of the words, "AMERICAN HOSTAGE"!
Has not the current administration spoken to the distress of a people invaded, where possessions were taken, where people were thrown out of their own houses. He and the Congress have indeed said so, spending lives and Billions to rectify this very wrong, as described by the, "IRAQI WAR'!
THE PLEADING
A preface: I do NOT look for an audience, I do not beg another to help me, I do not fear death. Rather the realities of stroke, mental and physical handicaps, the possibilities of dependancy, all gather to say, (if Not for yourself then for those who would be asked to help).
To the degree that, I must pursue an injustice that confronts me directly, and may be considered to confront us all, the Bill of Rights says it best, (with one word added), section 15: That NO free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to (the reality of) Justice, Moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
A CASE
INTENT UPON
LIFE IN HUMAN TERMS
NOT
MEDICAL TERMS
NOT
GREED OR CHARITY
RATHER
TRUTH, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY
MY OWN CASE, IS AS FOLLOWS
1. A possible cause for physical disturbance; In the spring of 1989, my ears became damaged due to a farming accident, this as a consequence, eliminated most of my income source, my ability to travel, and much of the possibilities of social gatherings. A year later when the physical problems erupted, my ears were still no better. Although I would not say life was totally stressful, there was concern.
2. Prior to the day I asked to be taken to the emergency room, for several weeks, I had been feeling minor chests pains on an ever increasing schedule. The day before I arrived at Covenant, I attempted to "work the pains out", by hard physical labor, It did not work. Riding a bicycle thereafter became a labored experience (not a usual occurrence).
3. The morning of that day after climbing stairs, my heart felt as though it stopped for a minute. The remaining effect was a physical weakening. I walked back down the stairs a few minutes later and said to my parents, "I think I had a heart attack". I felt strange.
4. An hour or so later I asked to be taken to the emergency room.
5. At Covenant hospital I was given a paper to sign and was left sitting in the waiting area for about twenty minutes. A person exiting asked and I replied, I feel bad. Exhibit A
6. Finally two nurses put me in a small treatment room, as soon as I was on their table, they turned away. Attempting to find help, I said to them, "I feel like there's an elephant sitting on my chest", they ignored me completely. I, will grant an elephant to be an exaggeration, it was far more like a 200 lb man, sitting on my chest, but at this point I was attempting to say to those who were suppose to help, "this is important".
7. After fifteen minutes or so, most of which I was completely alone, behind closed doors, without any monitoring equipment, of any kind, I was moved to a main treatment room.
8. Upon being helped on that table clip holders, for their monitor, were placed on my chest, everyone then left, without saying a word, during the entire procedure NOR inviting any word from me.
9. During the fifteen minutes or so in the small treatment room the pressure on my chest subsided. I still felt very poorly.
10. While in the main treatment room a man with some type of heart monitor came in attached the machine to my toes and produced a five foot graph of heart rhythms (I asked, he nodded).
11. A short time later I saw a new person holding what I assume to be that same five foot strip of paper through the window dividing the treatment room and the nurses station.
12. My dad came in at about that time, asked what it was and I said heart attack, for lack of a better explanation. While in this treatment room with me the new person came in announced he was a heart doctor; (and stated) I had NO right or reason to be there, I should get out of here, and there was NO WAY HE would treat or examine me. He never came within five feet of me, and left immediately after the above speech, without allowing me a single word. Exhibit B
13.A short time later my dad left, and within five minutes or so beyond that suddenly to my SURPRISE four people came rushing in surrounding me and began to get out needles and medicine of many kinds, in a hurry. I SAID, in an audible and clear voice, "DON'T do it, I am feeling some better (certainly no worse)". One nurse replied to me, "I wish we didn't But we have to", at which point medicine was injected in my arm, some type of patch applied to my chest, and I don't know what else. I was not in a physical condition to strongly object.
14. When the medicines were completed they all stepped back and waited as if to see a distinct response, an immediate highly noticeable response was not forth coming and one person directed his attention to the machine behind me and exclaimed, "it must have been this clip", at which time the clip was moved and each went
back to the nurses' station. I slowly began to feel worse. I did not at any time within the treatment room make any sudden moves, or drastically alter positions.
15. Approximately five minutes or so after this took place a lady came in declaring herself to be a psychiatrist who just happened to be in the hospital and was asked by the doctor to see me. We conversed for a short time and when again asked I described my pain as a heart attack. Exhibit C
16. Without a single word I was then wheeled out of the treatment room and moved to the eighth floor of the hospital.
17. Within the hospital, the first nurse to attend to me, stated I should tell her how I felt and any changes I experienced. I began to say to her, my body felt nervous, (not myself, but my body as completely apart from me). She instructed me to take a pill, I told here I don't like drugs, she considered it important and I agreed.
18. The pill had no effect and I think I had another one. A second nurse came in and at about this time it began to feel like a circle of needles were positioned above my heart in addition to a general nervousness relating to my body.
19. At this point the second nurse called, by phone, the doctor and asked him if she could give me a shot, he apparently OK'd it. I argued for a short time that "I don't like drugs", she said it was important and feeling bad, I finally accepted believing it might be the lesser of my two or three apparent choices.
20. She injected what looked like a lot of medicine and immediately asked, "feel better", I replied NO, WORSE AND DOUBLED UP.
21. Roughly twenty minutes later I sat up in bed and told the nurse I am finally feeling much better.
22. Through the night another nurse tried to help me down the hall
at my request, it was too much and I returned to the room.
23. Another nurse brought cotton for my ears as the fan in the room hurt and couldn't be shut off.
24. Early the next morning the doctor who refused me came in for a very fast check on the patient next to me. As he raced back out of the door he glanced at me once and said, "YOU can leave", I saw no more of him (I would have left anyway).
25. I got up some time after that and told the nurses to check me out and then waited for two hours or so in the waiting room of that floor, for my parents to come.
26. I did Not feel well and did experience several gas attacks particularly after eating, I never had a gas attack before.
27. Roughly two weeks after this hospital treatment during which time I experienced numerous gas attacks and heart pains. My remedy was walking, heart massage, as many as four aspirin at a time (taken at once) and various medicines supposed to reduce gas, (NONE of which helped at all). At about two weeks I had an enormous cramp in my leg shortly after going to bed. I attempted to get up to "walk it out", and fell after two steps, it quickly passed but it was a serious pain.
28. At about three weeks after my hospital visit, I was experiencing considerable trouble with tightness of chest, I associate with gas, for hours at a time. Symptoms limited to this but recurrent each day, for roughly one week, approximately 12 hours a day.
29. At one specific occasion at the end of the aforementioned week, the evening began without much discomfort, HOWEVER, roughly 11:00 that night. I felt distinctly as if a hole or valve at the top of my stomach had opened for a short time and a pressurized fluid or gas escaped into the area above the stomach, no pain was particularly evident at that time, however an hour or so later I began to feel very BAD. It felt to me as if a blockage existed on the top and toward the back of my heart. I felt specifically as if my heart was working hard and pressure was building up inside my body (heart) at this point of my body. It became serious and I was certain damage was about to occur, finally the blockage broke free, it seemed to me in pieces, and then the pressure was released. I still felt very poor but MUCH BETTER than the minutes previously.
30. My physical condition since leaving the hospital as previously described was poor, but for weeks after this night my physical condition was pathetic, everything required a very slow pace, or not at all.
31. At about 50 days from leaving the hospital, the hospital bill required attention. I argued UNFAIR, they said collectively, "Pay Up, because there is nothing YOU can do about it", at their price, at their interest rate, according to their schedule.
32. I made it clear they could have $1000.00 or $100.00 a month to $1000.00. They finally accepted one hundred dollars a month, still insisting on the full amount.
33. I was not up to fighting further. My condition improved little by little until the next spring (a year later) when I finally started feeling, like my old self. Thinking it over, I began to work in the old ways without careful attention. After about two hours of garden work, suddenly many of the old pains from this experience returned.
34. It is over a year beyond that time, and I still experience gas and chest pains on an infrequent basis. My ability to pass a stress test is seriously limited and the hospital is demanding money after several months of NO word.
REVIEW OF PLEADING
Review 1. Indicating probable cause due to stress.
Review 2. Determination something was indeed wrong and was not going away without a high probability of something worse.
Review 3. Does NOT indicate a massive stroke, ONLY a worsening of the aforementioned illness.
Review 4. A situation wherein ANY PRUDENT PERSON would seek assistance.
Review 5. The admittance, showing competency to sign, and a willingness to accept a reasonable service and cost, by the patient. Acceptance of a patient (I), by the hospital, AN AGREEMENT BY THE HOSPITAL, to provide a doctor, an examination, and a diagnosis BASED upon that examination. Exhibit A
Review 6. A DEMONSTRATED desire to talk, specifically about my physical situation. A complete lack of interest, at least to the extent that (I) as a patient, had anything to say. The description and verbal plea for assistance. The Reality of asking for, accepting payment for, and a situation wherein (I) felt it necessary to exaggerate to a limited degree, in an effort to receive some resemblance of care, as to what the average citizen would consider appropriate.
Review 7. Apart from no visible sign of care EVEN AFTER a verbal plea, I was left alone behind closed doors without the slightest examination, questioning, or listening!
Review 8. Again I was placed in the hands of professional emergency staff and again NO ONE spoke to me, or asked any question of me, NOR did they do any more for me than hook up their monitor and assist me onto their table. No examination of any kind. This time I did not try to initiate a response or ask for help as before, it seemed there was no one to listen.
Review 9. My condition was finally beginning to improve somewhat by this time, it had been roughly two hours from the time, at home when the pain had increased, till this point. I view that as COMPLETELY APART from any hospital care, as I had received NONE.
Review 10. I next was hooked to a machine by a silent man at my toes and it is assumed the machine examined me. The man did not declare himself a doctor, made no comment whatever, stood at my toes for thirty seconds and then left.
Review 11. I was again alone for several minutes, still feeling very poor looking toward the direction I was pointed to.
Review 12. I again described my complaint to the only one listening, my dad. Shortly after the hospitals doctor came in and demonstrated what I believe to be: Prejudicial of me and/or my life. I do believe this prejudice was intentional and in my mind reckless (at least to my physical well-being) and it offended me seriously and was/is a direct INSULT to my life. Of the few cases similar in part, to my own specific treatment: The case of Delicco vs. Trinidad area Health ass'n, Seems relevant in that refusal by hospital employees for reasonable action, is NOT unheard of.
I do also believe this act perpetrated upon me, in such a situation, is the beginning of a case for NEGLIGENCE. I was accepted as a patient, WHO WOULD BE BILLED, I was found within the emergency treatment room, complaining of heart problems. I was not only refused an examination, I was told to leave in NO uncertain terms. I was given no opportunity to talk or respond in ANY manner and the entire episode was such, that my dad developed a diminished view of my complaint, and me.
I do believe the treatment I received was FAR LESS than any REASONABLE PERSON would view as professional or acceptable. I do further believe, "the act speaks for itself". If this were standard practice, who would go?
I do understand that some emotional immunity is required of the medical professional, BUT I did NOT come asking for emotion, ONLY a Realistic examination, by a Doctor. What I got exceeded any possibility of not wanting to be emotionally involved, I got NO involvement, EXCEPT for, "How will the BILL be paid"!
Review 13. Speaks to my physical condition remaining fairly constant, even improving, that I was surprised, even bewildered by four people suddenly rushing in. When it became clear to me I was about to receive medicine, I DISTINCTLY remember, Bluntly saying NO I'm feeling better, DON'T do it, (My physical ability to defend myself, at that time was to poor to offer other than verbal resistance).
That I was heard and understood before the medicines, is CLEAR in the Nurses' reply. That I was mentally aware and competent to refuse: Speaks for itself. IF anyone on the Nursing staff had attended me, at any time, there would have been time to establish what I, deemed to be Reasonable care, and the resulting medication would NOT have occurred, (unless ABSOLUTELY necessary). I DO BELIEVE, "It was NOT necessary at this time". Of interest, since I faced the nurses station, there were at least four Nurses standing there apparently doing nothing except watching the monitor throughout this ordeal.
Review 14. Indicates a Complete dependance upon a single machine, a failure to communicate with me, a medical treatment as a result of a machine malfunction, without the benefit of HUMAN involvement, NONE of which I had any control over whatsoever. The doctor made no appearance before, during, or after, this occurrence. An ABANDONMENT.
Review 15. A further description of my basic plight, and a licensed professional whose clinical observations, according to my file, declare me competent, insofar as my sanity is concerned.
Throughout this case, my cause and my plea is simply FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT! Further stated: This case is about Billing, Duty, and Justice.
Review 16. Written to show the emergency staff had simply discarded any responsibility over my situation: That I was treated improperly is CLEARLY EVIDENT within the hospital file itself. The Doctor P. Thopiah, md writes in effect He's Fine; even though he never came within five feet of me.
IF according to the Doctors writing (I) was physically alright, WHY was I given Heparin, a serious drug for heart patients?
This simple inconsistency would seem to indicate: SOMETHING IS IMPROPER, within this file! Particularly as it is viewed within this file, I repeatedly said, "I don't like drugs, I don't take drugs, I have NEVER EXPERIMENTED with drugs".
Another among many points of contention (discharge Instruction record), follow up appointment, chart indicates, one week! NO mention to me of any kind regarding return visit, from any staff or doctor. Exhibit D
Review 17. I have NO complaint here Except for; the REALITY of how much did the emergency room contribute to my pain, or cause this next specific set of occurrence with regard to my body.
Review 18. Showing medical symptoms (NOT a heart attack per se), RATHER symptoms of physical problems related to a serious medical problem.
Review 19. Again indicates NO MEDICATION unless absolutely necessary.
Review 20. NO complaint here, the Nurse did what she could for me AND more importantly I did agree to this medicine with reservation, but Agreed. I do NOT complain of these Nurses treatment of me in the general hospital, at least, they heard my complaint. How necessary, I don't know BECAUSE I have no way to judge if strictly physical, OR the RESULT of improper treatment within the emergency room (the medicine previously administered, without my consent)!
Review 21. An improvement from awful.
Review 22. Indicating a seriously weakened physical condition.
Review 23. Evidence to ear damage mentioned at the beginning as to probable cause.
Review 24. Indicating abandonment to the degree His name appears on my file as my doctor (EVEN THOUGH HE never came closer than five feet to me, AND apart from this never spoke to me EXCEPT as described in #12 of these pleadings. Acknowledgment that He knew it was me; even from ten feet away He couldn't stop or slow his pace, or acknowledge me, except to say, "LEAVE".
Review 25. Determination to leave. Upon leaving my words to the nurse were, "Check me out", Acknowledging my entire stay from emergency room to that moment was 21 hours. Agitation seems obvious, that overall care was insufficient; although NO COMPLAINT is registered against the nursing staff of the general hospital, eighth floor.
Review 26. Continuing physical problems beyond hospital, at first limited to excess gas.
Review 27. Beginning of more serious problems
Review 28. Symptoms and refusal to seek medical treatment.
Review 29. Heart problems NOT massive heart failure BUT SERIOUS PROBLEMS. REFUSAL TO SEEK TREATMENT, ENDURED!
Review 30. Problems directly from my previous complaint.
Review 31. Refusal to admit ANY RESPONSIBILITY for poor treatment or worse, Collectively "WE WANT MONEY"! Exhibit F
Review 32. Acknowledgment that I had received treatment on the eighth floor, that resembled professional care. REFUSAL to pay for improper treatment.
Review 33. Ongoing problems associated with refusal, rejection, use and ABUSE within the initial visit.
Review 34. Still problems; SUDDEN demand for money.
It is my belief, the Emergency room procedures, for my life, were below a reasonable standard of care. It is my belief, the pains felt, which originally brought me to the hospital were directly connected to the pain and suffering experienced later on, the partial effects of which are still with me. It is also my belief, the medicine given to me against my will, may have aggravate my situation. It is a Reality, memories of my treatment in the emergency room kept me from seeking further medical treatment.
Now comes the attempt for adequate Judicial Intervention.
I. As had been stated: If covenant medical center insisted upon further payment, beyond the $1200.00 already paid, (without so much as an indication of any kind they or anyone at the hospital had heard my complaint) We would go to Court! Exhibit G
II. I filed in small claims court in the amount of $969.26, the remainder of their bill; Content merely to end this money disagreement. I filed in the manner instructed by the staff of the small claims court and awaited, "MY DAY IN COURT'!
III. The court date was 10:00 AM on a monday. The saturday immediately preceding the court date I received a letter through common mail from the law office of Thomas, Mamer, and Haughey, stating: the requirements of section 2-622 of the Illinois code of Civil procedure (Illinois Revised statutes, Chapter 110, paragraph 2-622) had not been met by me (Even though, I filed exactly as I was told to file, and at the time I was told) AND in accordance with section 2-622(G)l, the Defendant is entitled to dismissal under section 2-619 of the code of civil procedure, AND payment for the defendants incurred costs. Exhibit Q
IV. The letter stated I had not filed an affidavit, so I wrote one that saturday, and appeared in Court that monday, personal affidavit in hand, plus two of the letters I had previously sent to Covenant medical center. Exhibits J,K,L,M
V When it was my turn to approach the bench, their attorney stood up and immediately made a motion to dismiss, I had said nothing to this point, when asked by the Judge, I reported I received their letter on the saturday, prior to. He contemplated for a moment and then said: "I will put the case aside for ninety days, (which was to give me time to get an affidavit), it's the least you deserve." Then He told me I must have an affidavit from a medical doctor, and the matter was over. Exhibit H
VI I next went to the doctor I had received treatment from as a child with a simple one page statement which I was asking for, and a one page statement describing my complaint. He refused through his nurse. I then went seeking other doctors or teachers (as the law allows) and found NO one. Exhibits N,O
VII Upon looking more closely at the law requiring these things the following is noted: In any action,_________the plaintiff shall file an affidavit________. 1. That the affiant has consulted and reviewed the facts of the case with a health professional_________(and obtained an affidavit from him/her), clearly identifying the plaintiff and the reasons, "for the reviewing health professionals' determination", that a reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action exists,_______, BUT information which would identify the reviewing health professional may be deleted from the copy so attached. Then again in 2-622 (3)
3.(a-h). REQUIRES the health professional to be judge and jury regarding this affidavit and this plaintiff, and this case.
These words are grounded in statement 3(e),_________the right to depose and examine any and all reviewing health professionals. IF, the health professional is DUPED by the plaintiff or evidence presented, to him/her, liability could be imposed.
An Examination of Judicial process.
Review I. The decision describing a NEED for Honest Intervention between two parties. The reality, "NO DEAL can be struck without an EQUAL AND FAIR AND LEVEL playing field.
Review II. The supposed remedy, clearly indicating a lack of revenge, a complete willingness to pay a REASONABLE, (EVEN EXCESSIVE) SUM. Usage of GOVERNMENT PROVIDED STAFF, THEIR METHODS, AND THE EXPECTATION OF A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARING.
Review III. Intervention of my right to DUE PROCESS, that I, a citizen of these United States, having followed all applicable rules as a citizen might, that I have sought to call for evidence and prepared my own, that a trial might show MY RIGHT and MY CASE, to be JUST: Clearly shows My Right to due process according to the Bill of Rights, section 11, has been tampered with. And Further shows, the lack of a complete legal education, CAN make me liable for costs BEYOND ANY possible description of JUSTICE.
Review IV. Will indicate the desire to be FAIR, prompt, and complete as any citizen might.
Review V. Indicates NO trial or portion thereof was commenced, no hearing or pleading held. Clearly as well, the lawyer for the defense (in effect, laughing at me), attempting to use a hidden law (inappropriate and unlawful), to complete a MOCK TRIAL even to the point of charging ME money for a trial that wasn't!
Further: Within the words held dearly by this Nation; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Reality of this type of "justice", is NOT Justice, Rather it is even against the very call and Nature of the Constitution and the men who fought and DIED to protect OUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS.
It is clearly NOT the judges' fault, in this matter, for He must uphold the law, the blame then falls to state government, as well as Federal.
Review VI. Clearly shows the difficulty and impoverishment of the average citizen, intent upon Justice, given the yoke placed upon us all.
That a health professional may not wish to be involved in a situation which could be libelous is understandable. That in relation to the words given by Me, for their view, it is apparently FAR TOO MUCH TO ASK OF ANY IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. Thereby denying every patient Due Process under the law.
Review VII. That my Right to due process is in serious jeopardy within such an imprisonment of the Bill of Rights, section 11.
That this law MUST be abolished as it not only invites, BUT Requires a health professional to be sought and paid: thereby eliminating my Constitutional Right to defend Myself; and to call for trial on and because and within the evidence at hand. The state has effectually taken away my right as a citizen to due process and given it to another.
The worst, may be , of Ill revised statute chapter 110, paragraph 2-622, is the clear temptation of medical men and women to Go Ahead, be involved,.....AND then making that health professional libelous and at Risk professionally If the plaintiff does not win the case.
THE REALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS: WHO, HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE?
Every Nation is an assembly of people who by Nature, situation, and Environment, have come together to decide; How, WE may best live among each other.
A Nation is commenced when the VAST MAJORITY, HAVE AGREED, to the words and actions which are MOST IMPORTANT to each Individual.
This in itself is a recognition, that some smaller differences in men/women will be ignored, and in return, LAWS, (which is the literal decision to live in PEACE) will be established. PEACE and FREEDOM and EQUALITY, are the HONEST AND TRUE REWARD for JUSTICE (just laws).
The founders of this Nation made clear in their own words, what they were willing to FIGHT AND DIE for. These are most eloquently stated within state and federal Constitutions, some of which are: We, therefore, the representatives of the people,....
and also, We the people.......Do ordain and established;...and so on.
STATE CONSTITUTIONS
Colorado article II Bill of Rights section 1, vestment of political power. ALL political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.
Georgia preamble: To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen and of the family, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty,......
Idaho Declaration of Rights, section 1: All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.
Maryland Declaration of Rights, article 1; That all Government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
Massachusetts A Constitution or form of Government, the end of the institution, maintenance and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it, with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life; and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government , and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness. The Body-Politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: It is a Social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain Laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a Constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation, and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them. We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of his providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, or entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other......Massachusetts.
Wisconsin Declaration of Rights article 1 Equality; inherent rights, section 1 All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to serve these rights, governments are instituted deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
IT IS THE JOB, AND THE DUTY, AND THE HONOR, of Government to uphold, defend, and regulate according to the will of the people. These words written as Constitutional law DO HEREBY DECLARE, what is expected from the Government, of this Nation, by its PEOPLE; IF IT IS NOT SO, then the Constitutions, state of federal, have no use or purpose whatsoever!
Part II Provisions of Existing Constitutions Chapter IX: The written Constitution and its Bill of Rights (An constitutional conventions pp 610-611 fourth edition)
The United States has made many a contribution to the theory and practice of modern politics. Among these by no means the least is the written constitution. Developed during the throes of the Revolution, one hundred and thirty eight years ago, it, and its maker the convention, have been the chief means through which democracy has made its demands and fixed them in the law of the land. A Convention, democratically organized, voices the will of the people. This will, formulated into the fundamental law, is a Guarantee of Life and Liberty, and a surety against governmental injustice and tyranny.
From: Model for a new Constitution. A Mr. Tugwell, a politician of some prominence in the 1960s' wrote; "that the institutions we now possess were hammered out and struggled over by our predecessors, as well as ourselves; that the customs and loyalties we still honor and try to preserve, and the rights we enjoy, were won for us in battles now almost forgotten; that all of these were created for us as much as by us.....
It is an absolute belief in the honest system of one person, one vote, which allows the statement: We the citizens of this Nation, ARE CAPABLE, and therefore worthy, to choose our own destiny. It is the Governments job in every branch, to accept and enforce OUR DECISIONS!
Comes the statement: FREEDOM, DOESN'T MEAN- I can charge whatever I want! Particularly in Medical areas, BECAUSE, NO ONE chooses a medical emergency (even the mentally ill do not choose mental illness). These are matters which change lives and families in an instant, there is no time or strength to barter. When a persons very life hangs in the balance, monetary cost should not apply.
I happened to be walking the streets of a city one day when coming upon an accident scene; a fifty (or so) year old black man had been badly injured, lost a lot of blood and was obviously in pain, when the paramedics picked him up on a stretcher to take him to the hospital he sat up and clearly said to them, "NO, don't take me to the hospital, they will take everything I have, and I am to Old to start over again"! They took him, he needed to go, his life was in trouble.
There are VERY MANY PEOPLE who have been bankrupted by medicine (the need to survive), IT IS INJUSTICE, and it is abandonment by the government: It is in my mind CONTRARY to the Bill of Rights, section 4: That NO man or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the Community....
This amendment was written concerning Judges and politicians, BUT applies perfectly in its concept and intent, to the medical profession. A medical emergency literally means YOU are completely vulnerable in many area's, YOU, the patient MUST simply hope for the best, (I BELIEVE IN PRAYER), and many mistakes are/will be made, irregardless, it is currently YOUR responsibility to pay ANYTHING the Hospital or doctor (whoever) requires of you, according to them. In truth there is NO Reasonable means for arbitration. Even due process and equal protection are virtually meaningless made so by hidden laws and unaffordable lawyers. Court protection has no meaning if it cannot be afforded OR costs more than the incident in question.
This then is the question: It is a choice between the medical profession and each patient: Strictly in terms of money, WHAT IS EQUAL TREATMENT? Strictly in terms of HUMANITY, the ONLY answer possible is a percentage of income according to each patient (those who serve the Rich MUST be required to share with those who serve the poor), With a yearly cap on expenses, for the patient. NO Insurance allowed. In this way momentarily at least, EVERYONE IS EQUAL. Sharing means the hospital collects and redistributes according to surgeries done, patients seen, etc. Doctors and staff may argue among themselves, who gets the most.
DECISIONS OF THE COURT, ITS PURPOSE AND ITS IDEAL.
A Robert McCloskey wrote: "Since the Court cannot do everything, it best serves our Constitutional order by concentrating on the protection of personal rights."
An excerpt from the New York court of appeals reads: "Liberty, in its broad sense as understood in this country, means the right, not only of freedom from actual servitude, imprisonment or restraint, but the right to use his faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood in any lawful callings, and to pursue any lawful trade or avocation. All laws, therefore which impair or trammel these rights which limit one in his choice of a trade or profession, or confine him to work or live in a specified locality, or exclude him from his own house, or restrain his otherwise lawful movements (except as such laws may be passed in the exercise by the legislature of the police power...) are infringements on his fundamental rights of liberty, which are under Constitutional protection.
Further defined into these words of a Court Justice, is the clear concept that while lawful work or vocation is a fundamental right, there is NO such right declared , toward the billing practice OR acceptance of monies, which brings actual servitude, "descriptive of monetary imprisonment and restraint".
To cause or take, from a man/woman or their family, their house or transportation, or credit, or attach their wages, as is common and representative of the outrage of current medical costs is as much an enslavement of the Individual, as any other method!
The first amendment, Bill of Rights: That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursing and obtaining happiness and safety.
IF these words have meaning, then they apply specifically to this situation: Where a man/woman or child MUST endure an assault upon their very being; Bringing to their house a debt imposed upon them which was NEVER desired, NOR chosen, NOR accepted in the truer Reality of "freedom of choice"! These things which are medical emergencies are imposed upon the Individual, NOT, "a free will choice". The debts medically incurred today in America, in a MORAL truth are far more descriptive of extortion than help.
Indeed the Court Justice wrote (in effect) those things which impair or trammel these rights, which limit one in his choice....or confine him....or exclude him from his own house, or restrain his otherwise lawful movements, are infringement on his fundamental rights of liberty, which are under Constitutional protection.
PAIN bears its own costs, to inflict upon a human being further, by demands exceeding their limited securities, by controlling or extracting, (while in a weakened state), the possibilities of home and work, the descriptions of NO money, NO home, a future torn, all contribute to the reality of conspiratory extortion, NOT JUSTICE.
Debts incurred by choice are entirely different! Medical expenses are Cost Plus, NOT Cost Times (anything they want)
While liberty assumes NO restrictions, Reality dictates restrictions abound, Criminal law is such a demonstration of legal restriction. The RESTRICTION of billing practices which produce bankruptcy and serious stress on the vast majority of people and their families, while literally being unnoticed by the minority (rich), who are subjected to supposed identical treatment, is REASONABLE!
From the files of workers compensation as written within (98 advisory commission on intergovernmental relations):.....some courts preceded legislatures with an impetus for reform. Employers defenses, Wisconsin Chief Justice noted, were "archaic and unfitted to modern industrial conditions", a sentiment that reflected growing national consensus. Furthermore once employers understood
that a scheduled compensation system would not only reduce the
financial uncertainties surrounding the common law system but also
mitigate labor unrest, resistance to reform ceased.
The current system doesn't work, National consensus decrees it is so, it then becomes the courts true and literal obligation and responsibility to call for reform, to be respectful and responsive to those who elect and pay for the government, through Law.
Substantive due process: This case does conform with the true meaning of the word, "MONOPOLY"(meaning), exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, OR a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
Declaration of fact: Doctors as well as hospitals require strict obedience to their orders otherwise the patient may be charged legally with contributory negligence. Patients once incapacitated cannot relocate OR relocating means acceptance of more tests, duplicate bills and so on. Emergency patients are delivered to where the ambulance driver goes.
These things each contribute to isolating the patient in a
specific environment, failure to follow the rules constitutes
reason for abandonment, the decision to leave has serious
financial problems, and possible health problems. Many patients have no say as to specific facilities, nor knowledge of them.
The word monopoly specifies: exclusive control over a commodity or service, (a patient may not refuse medicines provided by the hospital, at the hospitals price), (a patient has no possible way of determining significant injury apart from his/her personal doctor or the hospital doctors').
These things coupled with absolute need makes possible the manipulation of price and service with little or NO alternative for the patient. Accidents can (Illness's as well) afflict any citizen, at any time, young or old, therefore I, a citizen as do those who join this action, declare a need for government (judicial) intervention; for the purpose of a "Fair and Level playing surface", for patients, as well as the medical profession.
Within the word, Monopoly, this case DOES therefore fall within jurisdiction of anti-trust law and proceeds as follows: found in, Hartford-Empire co V. U.S. 387 syllabus 2 (c); the acts restrained by a decree of injunction must be described specifically therein and not by reference to the bill of complaint. P 410
Further in: Private Antitrust-Attorney Fee 21 ALR FED 750 reads....it was stated that a primary purpose of #4 of the Clayton Act is to encourage private persons to undertake the enforcement of the anti-trust laws in order to more effectively carry out congressional policy against illegal monopolies and restraints of trade, and that the provision in #4 insuring a successful plaintiff a reasonable attorney's fee.......and places this cost burden on the defendant...page 756 Unsuccessful prosecution as will support an application for an award of attorney's fees......such plaintiff can recover from the anti-trust defendant under #4 of the Clayton act only for such portion of the attorneys efforts as produced a recovery (#5[a], infra). Likewise, a court may not award attorney's fees to the plaintiffs' for the time their attorney's spend on matters relating to defendants who are dismissed (#5 {a}, infra).
Although the relationship between Anti-trust attorney fees may seem vague at the outset, IT DOES establish Clear precedent as to the legality of, who and how, has the right to control, excessive charges, by professionals, working in an anti-trust arena.
Further the words, as defined within the Medical profession, DO dictate there is a limit to Reasonable charges for services rendered, ALSO there should be NO charge, where the services provided by the professional (and as such the hospital), which do NOT end in a successful medical treatment. These DO NOT deserve an award of fees (BUT perhaps a partial fee), for services which do not prove successful. HOW COULD IT NOT BE SO?
In every aspect of the natural economy, there is clear evidence of payment for services rendered in good faith (meaning the work MUST produce favorable results).
Precedent for medical cost intervention is clearly shown in the medicare payments for services rendered schedule. IF the government can and will control cost for itself, does not the citizen deserve some resemblance of cost control? IF NOT, then surely the government acts ILLEGALLY.
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
In Conclusion: People are only people, with prejudice and faults and problems. This case does NOT attempt to alter, manipulate, or collect for damages. If your own body is against you, whose fault is it?
Irregardless of all other matters this case is about,"FAIR and EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR US ALL"!
There are those who say,"let them have the money, it may buy a cure", (as defined by medical experimentation). In REALITY cures are not bought with money,(look at all the money that has been spent around the world), CURES are found by people.
Those machines which are exceptionally expensive, but deemed necessary, by the public, can be bought with tax dollars, for FAR LESS MONEY, than by a hospital.
Expensive buildings are/is for public perception, NOT quality of care (consider army M.A.S.H. units).
Medical staff deserve Reasonable pay BUT, reasonable means more than the average, but NOT ten or twenty times more.
A change in billing procedure, a peoples Court (similar to the TV show), a public evaluation of the average patients perceived care, and so on, WILL NOT result in a deterioration of care or services. IF IT DID, greed was all that's left of your medical profession, and Greed doesn't care!
As it regards medical tragedies, such as transplants, etc, those who wish to, MAY purchase medical Insurance, for those things which on a personal basis the vast majority of citizens shall not encounter, (NO Insurance, TOO BAD).
There are those who will complain, they pay more for the same service (these are the rich), AND they shall be on the front lines, of this battle. Tell them they don't have to seek medical treatment, its optional (IF money is more important). Justified in this evaluation is the simple REALITY; the sons and daughters of the poor and middle class are on the front line of other wars, IT IS FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT.
These matters are brought to the Court as the single OPINION: Determining what is Constitutional, and what is not, for the Nation (APART FROM THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES), is the Courts JOB.
I/WE are NOT asking for economic reform, NOT a change in free enterprise.
I/WE are asking to be EQUAL, to have a "FAIR AND LEVEL, PLAYING FIELD" for dispute resolution, for information from other patients about doctors and hospitals, AND TO HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE EQUITY, to take care of services received, IN AN HONORABLE WAY.
FOR US ALL, it is written: There is no honor in being sick, no value over physical health. I/WE are not seeking monetary reimbursement, RATHER we are seeking to live with COURAGE, RESPECT, AND TO HONOR THOSE WE LOVE.
TO: COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
I will make one deal with you, and no more: My parents have declared upon telling them I would take you to court, "YOU can't possibly win, all that's' going to happen is they (you) will get mad at me and then refuse to treat me (OR perhaps them)".
They do not wish to be involved, IF you treat them POLITELY, allowing a simple written statement, in their words; or a short selection of simple questions, AS WE AGREE UPON, being answered APART from the trial.
Then I will withdraw ALL CLAIM to malpractice (IN TERMS OF PERSONAL MONETARY DAMAGES, for this specific offence), except for the billing dispute. This will be settled.
IF you fail in this request: I WILL REAPPEAR AT A LATER DATE.
LET WHOSOEVER WOULD JOIN THIS ACTION UNDERSTAND: There is NO attempt to fight beyond what is necessary for EQUAL treatment. There will be NO monetary award to collect, ANY possibility that could occur as a result of joining this litigation, IS AT YOUR OWN PERSONAL RISK!
To those who join: My life is my own, it is NOT a public life, I WILL RETAIN, my privacy. All the information (I consider to be necessary), for this case, IS contained within the evidence and Court papers, (Plaintiff's version). PLEASE seek out the defense's version if you wish.
It is YOUR CHOICE to join or not to join, the case itself is PUBLIC, AND YOU ARE INVITED!
an ADMISSION OF PURPOSE,
and a WARNING OF INTENT.
The matters which have occurred resulting in PUBLIC trial, are neither by my design, NOR are they my desire. RATHER, because I AM confronted directly, specifically involved, MORALLY obligated because OF MY own decisions, and have obtained all the necessary evidence and skills required for this work. I do consider this a necessary work.
BE AWARE
I will NOT tolerate SLANDER. To the defense; My personal life, BELONGS TO ME.
It is hereby stated: If YOU Deviate from the DIRECT MATTERS, SPECIFICALLY NECESSARY, to this PUBLIC TRIAL,
YOU WILL REGRET IT!
EVIDENCE SUMMARY:
Exhibit A Authorization for Medical Treatment
Exhibit B "so called, Physical exam" I WAS NEVER TOUCHED OR APPROACHED. Doctor says normal BUT, then says full Heparin, to be used SERIOUS DIFFERENCES
Exhibit C No evidence of thought mood disorder.
Exhibit D Distinct differences of opinion
Exhibit E Heparin given
Exhibit F Demand for payment
Exhibit G Small Claims petition
Exhibit H Motion to dismiss
Exhibit J Personal affidavit written for small claims Court.
Exhibit K/L Prior correspondence to Covenant Medical Center.
Exhibit M Speaks for itself.
Exhibit N The search paper for a doctor subsequent to Civil Procedure Code 110; 2-622
Exhibit O A second sheet coupled to Exhibit N, used in the search of a doctor, subsequent to Code 110; 2-622
Exhibit P My complete hospital records of this specific incident.
Exhibit Q The Code of Civil Procedure 110; 2-622
Exhibit R Heparin, a formal description.
A PUBLIC HEARING:
notice is hereby given regarding the Public, Class Action Suit: James F. Osterbur vs. Covenant Medical Center. Urbana, Illinois.
This case is about Billing procedures of the Medical Profession, AND is intent upon restructuring said billing procedures, to a more FAIR, EQUAL, AND LEVEL, "playing field", for the Public at large.
BE IT HEREBY KNOWN
THE DECISION
Allowing the usage of medical information by, James F. Osterbur
as it relates to the pending case 92-C-1222 of the circuit court of
the 6th Judicial Circuit, Champaign County, IL, is HEREBY AND HEREIN GRANTED!
TO BE USED WITHIN THE PURPOSES OF CASE 92-C-1222! Whose stated purposes is contained within the Court files described as; A CASE intent upon life in human terms, NOT medical terms, NOT greed or charity, RATHER Truth, Equality, and Fair play.
I,_________________________________________who resides at ___________________________________________________________ ________
BEING THE DIRECT MEDICAL PATIENT, spoken of or physically involved, or having POWER OF ATTORNEY, by parenthood or other: DO, HEREBY DECLARE THIS MEDICAL INFORMATION: CASE NUMBER__________________
AT HOSPITAL___________________________________________________ ____
WHOSE LEGAL ADDRESS IS_____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
AND OTHER INFORMATION, as may be contained therein: ARE FREELY GIVEN
GIVEN, without reservations or terms.
GIVEN, without compensation, for its use!
GIVEN, with the FULL KNOWLEDGE of any other person, with LEGAL AUTHORITY over same!
GIVEN, understanding these proceedings, case 92-C-1222, MAY AFFECT my own court case, good or bad; should I,__________________________
wish to proceed with my own case: prior to, at this time, or at a later date! I, DO ACCEPT THIS RISK, without compensation or cause.
GIVEN, that there shall be NO CASE WHATSOEVER, for slander, libelous, defamation of character, emotional distress, etcetera. I,__________________________________DO ACCEPT THESE POSSIBILITIES, as my own, within the limits of case 92-C-1222, UNDERSTANDING THIS IS TO BE A PUBLIC CASE, with possible media attention, etcetera.
GIVEN, That I am aware, LEGAL COUNSEL should/could be sought out, to protect MY INTERESTS; I DO ACCEPT, the responsibility of
PAGE 1 OF 2
my own actions and/or actions which I have chosen to make for another, over which I,_______________________________have legal authority!
GIVEN, that I am aware: the medical information I,_____________________________________present, through my own decisions and reasons SHALL NOT be represented in a legal manner BUT, SHALL BE represented as: INFORMATION, relative and representative of hospital treatment, as it describes matters important to the stated objectives of case 92-C-1222.
I DO ACCEPT AND AGREE AND ACKNOWLEDGE: This Declaration (DECISION), TERMINATES, All Rights to pursue legal action against, James F. Osterbur, or others as may be directly involved, with regard to this case 92-C-1222!
I, _____________________________________being of sound mind and legal age, AND HAVING FULL LEGAL AUTHORITY, over such matters: DO HEREBY DECLARE, THE MEDICAL INFORMATION
PATIENT NAME:____________________________________________________
CASE NUMBER:_____________________DATED__________________________ _
HOSPITAL NAME_____________________________________________________
LOCATED AT________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
IS GIVEN, AS STATED ABOVE, FOR THE LEGITIMATE PURPOSES OF/WITHIN CASE 92-C-1222.
PATIENT OR PERSON WITH LEGAL AUTHORITY
_________________________________________________________________ __
WHOSE ADDRESS IS___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
WITNESSED BY______________________________________________________
WHOSE ADDRESS IS__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
WITNESSED BY _____________________________________________________
WHOSE ADDRESS IS__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
THANK YOU
PAGE 2 OF 2
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THE ISSUE: turning paper "garbage" into cellulose insulation, and GIVING IT AWAY!
THE SUGGESTION: IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME, IF, a city would buy a paper shredder suitable to the work, and provided this service of turning paper into insulation PEOPLE would provide the paper in return for that insulation.
A suitable price, would/could be, proper return of other recyclable materials.
THE BENEFITS:
LESS LANDFILL SPACE
MORE MONEY FOR CITIZENS TO PAY FOR ENERGY, ETC
LESS ENERGY WASTED
MORE ENERGY FOR THE FUTURE
LESS POLLUTION OF EVERY KIND
AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DESPERATELY NEEDED
LESS TAX BURDEN
BECAUSE "GARBAGE" IS 60% PAPER, A DOUBLING OF LANDFILL SPACE REQUIREMENTS
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AT A MINIMAL SKILL LEVEL
A HUGE BENEFIT TO THE POOR WHO ARE OTHERWISE UNABLE TO INSULATE THEIR HOMES.
TRUE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT!
True Government is not about who controls what, RATHER it is about what benefits society as a whole!
ITEM # 86
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
URBANA, ILLINOIS
3 JAMES OSTERBUR
plaintiff
5 VS.
6 COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
9 BE IT REMEMBERED AND CERTIFIED, that on, to-wit,
10 the 3d day of September A.D. 1993, the following
11 proceedings were had in the aforesaid cause before the
12 HONORABLE J. G. TOWNSEND, Judge Presiding.
13 APPEARANCES
JAMES OSTERRUR appearing Pro Se:
MICHAEL CORNYN Attorney-at-Law For the Defendant.
Proceedings reported and transcribed by: Nancy Sivertsen, CSR-CM, Official Court Reporter- in and for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Illinois
1 THE COURT: This is Case No. 92 C 1222. Are you
2 James F. Osterbur, sir?
3 MR. OSTERBUR: Yes, I am.
4 THE COURT: Show the appearance of the plaintiff.
5 Now from my examination of this file, it does not appear
6 that you are represented by a lawyer
7 MR. OSTERBUR: I am not.
8 The Court: -- or were not at the time this was
9 filed.
10 MR. OSTERBUR: (Shakes head back and forth)
11 THE COURT: Do you continue to represent yourself
12 in connection with the matter here today?
13 MR. OSTERBUR: Yes, I do.
14 THE COURT: The plaintiff appears pro se. Mr.
15 Cornyn appears on behalf of the Defendant Covenant. I have
16 set this today for hearing on the Motion to Dismiss that
17 was filed, and I note that you have each filed memoranda
18 and other documents in connection with the Motion to
19 Dismiss. Now since you are not an attorney, and do not
20 regularly appear here and practice, I'll describe to you
21 the process that we'll use, Mr. Osterbur.
22 The party making the motion has the opportunity to
23 go first and tell me what their position on the motion is.
24 The party opposing the motion, that would be you, has an
1 opportunity, then, to speak when the movant is done. And
2 then, since the movant has the burden of carrying the day,
3 or the burden of demonstrating why their motion ought to be
4 allowed, they get an opportunity to go, then, last. They
5 get to go first and last. You'll have one opportunity to
6 speak in between Mr. Cornyn's opportunities. I may have
7 some questions I want to ask the two of you, and when both
8 of you finish with your opportunity to make your
9 presentations, I will either rule, or if I think I need
10 some further time to study the law, I may take a little
11 time to do that.
12 That's the general process that we're going to
13 follow. Are you prepared to speak to your motion, Mr.
14 Cornyn?
15 MR. CORNYN: Your Honor, just briefly, I think the
16 motion comes in three parts. First, that the Complaint
17 itself doesn't state a cognizable cause of action, and
18 there are deficiencies in the Complaint. It doesn't lay
19 out what the Complaint actually is, and what the relief
20 sought would be. Furthermore, it appears that that small
21 claims case that was filed, and I think brought to
22 conclusion, 92 S 1561, which has raised at least in part
23 some of these issues, would seem to me to preclude them
24 being re-raised. And finally, to the extent that this
1 Complaint really is about medical treatment, or bad medical 2 treatment, or what would be called medical malpractice, the 3 Civil Practice Act requires under Section 2-622 a 4 Certificate from a reviewing physician which states
5 basically that he's reviewed the situation, and in his
6 opinion, there may be grounds to proceed on a medical
7 malpractice theory. Since these things have not been done,
8 there is no Certificate, no compliance with Section 2-622,
9 we believe this case should be dismissed. Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, what do you have to say
11 about this motion?
12 MR. OSTERBUR: I have prepared a statement that I'd
13 like to give you, and I have given one to the attorney just
14 shortly. I do have an original, but I forgot to staple it.
15 THE COURT: That's fine.
16 MR. CORNYN: And for the record, your Honor, I do
17 have a copy of that, and I have gone through it.
18 THE COURT: So the written material you presented
19 here is what you want to present today, and you do not want
20 to speak further.
21 MR. OSTERBUR I believe so.
22 THE COURT: All right. Well, give me a moment to
23 read this, then.
24 (The Court reviewed the document.)
1 THE COURT: For the record, I have read Mr.
2 Osterbur's written argument presented in connection with
3 the motion today, and will place the document I'm provided
4 in the file.
5 Mr. Osterbur, let me ask you a question or two
6 here, to try to focus my analysis on the case. If you
7 succeed in getting what you want as a result of this case,
8 what would you get?
9 MR. OSTERBUR: I would get the opportunity to
10 clearly define what the problems were in connection with
11 the treatment, and get some reimbursement. Not
12 reimbursement, but a reduction in the bill that I was
13 given. And then I would, at this point, and for this case,
14 have the Covenant Medical Center change their procedure, to
15 allow me to arbitrate without going to court, and without
16 such an extensive Procedure, to get to a point where I
17 could complain to them that my treatment was unfair, or the
18 billing, at least, was unfair as well. My treatment was
19 inappropriate.
20 THE COURT: Say the last part again.
21 MR. OSTERBUR: I say my treatment was
22 inappropriate.
23 THE COURT: And when you say treatment, are YOU
24 speaking of
1 MR. OSTERBUR: The way -
2 THE COURT: -- of medical treatment that led to the
3 billing, or the way you were treated in connection -
4 MR OSTERBUR: Last time.
5 THE COURT: -- the way you were treated in
6 connection with your complaint?
7 MR. OSTERBUR: Medical treatment that led to the
8 billing.
9 THE COURT: All right.
10 MR. OSTERBUR: I did not
11 THE COURT: So
12 MR. OSTERBUR I did not receive appropriate
13 treatment.
14 THE COURT: I want to try to restate, then, what I
15 think I heard you say, and I'd like for you to correct me
16 if I've misstated anything. As I understand it, there is a
17 billing dispute -
18 MR. OSTERBUR: There is.
19 THE COURT: -- and you want some relief by way of
20 an adjustment of the bill.
21 MR. OSTERBUR: That's correct.
22 THE COURT: The second, is that you want something
23 done with respect to the procedure -
24 MR. OSTERBUR: That this -
1 THE COURT: -- arbitration or mediation regarding
2 the bill.
3 MR. OSTERBUR: That's correct.
4 THE COURT: Is that correct?
5 MR. OSTERBUR: 'That's correct.
6 THE COURT: And thirdly, you have a complaint about
7 the actual medical treatment YOU received.
8 MR. OSTERBUR: For that would be the cause of why I
9 expect an adjustment in the billing, but I'm not at this
10 moment in time, or have not complained, or do not want to
11 make a case for malpractice. I want to make a case that
12 the treatment was poor, to bad, to worse, and I think I
13 have -- and you know, I want the opportunity to discuss
14 that without court in a legitimate manner.
15 THE COURT- To make sure I understand this now, you
16 do not make a claim for money damages alleging that somehow
17 their medical treatment of you was inappropriate.
18 MR. OSTERBUR: Medical treatment that I received
19 was inappropriate, and I believe that there is factual
20 basis for malpractice.
21 THE COURT: Well -
22 MR. OSTERBUR: However, I did not want -- you know,
23 that is not the reason I came to the to court in the first
24 place. Or well, that is the cause for the billing
7
1 adjustments, but I really don't want to get involved in
2 that type of court case. I just want to be able to state
3 the problem was this, have it heard in an appropriate
4 manner, and have it mediated appropriately, so that there's
5 an adjustment in the bill.
6 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Cornyn, I'm looking at a
7 piece of paper that has Mr. krchak's name on it. Mr.
8 Cornyn, what do you have to say about this in rebuttal?
9 MR. CORNYN: I'm trying to understand exactly what
10 the Complaint would be if it was re-cast under the Court's
11 questions just now, and it seems to me that in legal terms,
12 what Mr Osterbur would like me to do is enter some sort of
13 a declaratory judgment, and per-haps maybe with some sort of
14 injunctive relief, ordering the parties to sit down and
15 discuss a billing problem. And your Honor, I don't believe
16 that you can do that. I admit to some ignorance about the
17 prior history here, but on the basis of the court records
18 that I have seen, Covenant has not sued Mr. Osterbur for a
19 bill. That might be a very appropriate forum for Mr.
20 Osterbur to raise a complaint with the bill; I don't owe
21 it, I don't owe you that much, and here are the reasons
22 why. If Covenant had done that -- this is kind of, I
23 guess, a pre-emptive suit, saying that, I don't owe you the
24 money that you're claiming. He's not claiming damages if
8
1 it's not medical malpractice. Frankly, your Honor, I don't
2 know if medical malpractice raised as a defense to a bill
3 is governed by the provisions of 2-622. I think it is, I
4 think if you are going to assert in court that there has
5 been medical malpractice, you must have a certified
6 affidavit, but I've never seen medical malpractice raised
7 as a defense in an action, and so I'm not real sure of
8 that. But to the extent that he is simply asking that you
9 order, I guess, the parties to arbitrate or mediate, I
10 don't think you have the authority to do that. I'm unaware
11 of any law requiring that. There's no contract here that
12 has those kinds of provisions in it, in the normal way you
13 might get to mediation or arbitration. There's no
14 allegations that Covenant has made a claim. Covenant's not
15 the plaintiff here. I don't think, even if we could
*6 re-cast this Complaint under the questions of the Court,
17 and the responses Mr. Osterbur has just given, that this
18 Court has any power or authority to grant him the relief
19 that he's asking.
20 THE COURT: Now I want to make sure that I have
21 your position explicitly on the record here, Mr. Cornyn.
22 It is defendant's position that there is no written
23 agreement at all between plaintiff and defendant; is that
24 correct?
9
1 MR. CORNYN: Well, at least there's been none
2 alleged, your Honor. There's -- Obviously he's
3 complaining about a bill, and there's no written agreement 4 on this record. I'm unaware of a written agreement. I 5 believe what happened was that medical service was 6 rendered, and a bill was issued, which he's now disputing,
7 whether or not he should have even gotten the treatment, or
8 whatever that argument is. I'm unaware of any other kind
9 of writing, other than there may be a bill out there.
10 THE COURT: Are you aware of any sort of
11 administrative rule or regulations that govern the 12 defendant here, that in any way provides for, or rather, 13 requires mediation or arbitration with respect to billing?
14 MR. CORNYN: No, but in being perfectly candid with
15 the Court, I'm ignorant in that area. I don't know if such
16 a thing exists. I've never heard of one. I don't know of
17 any. I don't do a regular collection practice, but I'm
18 unaware of that, as such.
19 THE COURT: Are you aware of any statute which
20 provides for a mediation or arbitration process for medical 21 billing?
22 MR. CORNYN: No, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Now I want to ask you those same
24 questions, Mr. Osterbur. They're not referred to in any of
10
1 your filings, and I just want to make sure that I
2 understand your position on the record here. Do you claim
3 that there is any state law that requires people in your 4 position, and in Covenant's position, to have arbitration 5 or mediation over billing questions?
6 MR. OSTERBUR: I'm not aware of, or have been
7 unable to find specific laws or statutes on that. 8 THE COURT: Are you aware of any administrative 9 regulation, or rule of anybody, that governs Covenant's - 10 that provides for, or requires them to mediate or arbitrate 11 billing questions? 12 MR. OSTERBUR: I've been unable to find statutes 13 for that as well.
14 THE COURT: I discern a suggestion in some of your
15 filings that you signed something, or there's some
16 suggestion that somebody in physical distress ought not be
17 put in a position of signing something, and from that I
18 discern the possibility that you may have signed something
19 when you were in there.
20 MR. OSTERBUR: When -
21 THE COURT: Is there any written agreement that you
22 believe you may have signed at Covenant?
23 MR. OSTERBUR: When I appeared at the emergency
24 room door and complained of heart pains, they gave me a
1 short piece of paper to sign, and I signed that.
2 THE COURT: Is that piece of paper anywhere, in any
3 of the files, in either of the court files that you know
4 of?
5 MR. OSTERBUR: I believe it's in the exhibits. I
6 didn't bring it with me, it's -
7 THE COURT: In the exhibits, in which file?
8 MR. OSTERBUR: It should be case 92 C 1222. It
9 should be exhibit A, I think.
10 THE COURT: While I'm looking for that, do you
11 believe that document has a provision in it that
12 provision for arbitration or mediation of billing disputes?
13 MR. OSTERBUR: No, it doesn't. It contains only a
14 declaration that Covenant can do whatever they want to, and
15 they are not responsible, or they won't be.
16 MR. CORNYN: If I might aid the Court, your Honor,
17 I don't believe the exhibits were attached to the Complaint
18 that we've got, but on the very last two or three pages
19 from the last page of the Complaint, there's a caption
20 called Covenant Evidence, called Evidence Summary, and then
21 there's exhibits listed; an Exhibit A identified as an
22 authorization for medical treatment.
23 THE COURT: Well, there are some later-filed
24 documents that are exhibits here that I Presume may be
12
1 MR. OSTERBUR: That may be it.
2 THE COURT: -- that I presume may be further
3 exhibits.
4 MR. OSTERBUR: There is no billing agreement,
5 except for the authorization for medical treatment.
6 THE COURT. Well, I understand that Mr. Osterbur is
7 not desirous of presenting a claim for what is commonly 8 called medical malpractice, and that is not his purpose in 9 presenting this Complaint; and accordingly, I will not 10 undertake to address the pleadings in view of any of the 11 requirements that exist for pleadings and certificates with 12 respect to medical malpractice.
13 With respect to the question of adjustment of
14 billing, and mediation or arbitration of billing disputes,
15 I have considered the filings which are present here, and
16 the Motion. I understand that Covenant has not made a
17 claim in a court against Mr. Osterbur for -- yes, sir?
18 MR. OSTERBUR: They have given my name to a
19 collection agency, which did pre-empt this entire court 20 matter.
21 THE COURT: Okay, but they've not sued you
22 anywhere; is that correct?
23 MR. OSTERBUR: They've not sued me.
24 THE COURT: I understand there's not a lawsuit
13
1 pending with respect to any claim for medical services.
2 Now the function of somebody in my position as a
3 judge, is to either enforce the statutes which the 4 legislature has enacted, and the governor has signed, and 5 which are the laws of our state; or to construe and enforce 6 agreements between private parties, when there's a dispute 7 over those agreements. My examination of the filings here, 8 and my questioning of the plaintiff and the defendant's 9 attorney here, leads me to conclude that there is no 10 written agreement between the parties that addresses 11 mediation or arbitration, or requires some particular 12 framework for discussion of billings. I know of no statute 13 or regulation which requires the plaintiff and the 14 defendant in this case to engage in arbitration, or 15 mediation, or discussion of the billing disputes, and 16 neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant's attorney, cite 17 me to any statute or regulation which addresses the 18 question of mediation or arbitration. I simply am not in a 19 position -- and no judge, I suggest, is in the position - 20 to sort of make up the rules, so that society acts the way 21 that you think society ought to act.
22 Even if I agree with you, Mr. Osterbur, that there
23 ought to be a simpler and more convenient way to get face
24 to-face with people that you apparently have a billing
14
1 dispute, with since there is no private agreement for me to
2 look at and enforce, since there is no administrative rule, 3 or regulation, or law for me to construe or enforce here,
4 there isn't any recognized cause of action stated in your
5 Complaint, there's nothing that I could enforce by
6 proceeding with the lawsuit, so, I am going to grant the
7 Motion to Dismiss the cause of action here. I'm going to
8 dismiss with prejudice, because, as I've said, I don't see
9 anything at all under these circumstances that would be a
10 well-pleaded cause of action.
11 My dismissal with prejudice today doesn't require
12 any written order. Now if you think, Mr. Osterbur, that I
13 have made an error in my ruling today, you'd have to ask
14 that this be reconsidered. You have to do that in writing.
15 Or you have to file a notice of appeal, and if you want to
16 do either of those, that has to happen within 30 days of
17 today's date. After 30 days from today's date, any
18 opportunity to appeal my ruling, or any opportunity to ask
19 me to reconsider it, would be lost. So if you think
20 there's something you want to appeal here, or if you think
21 that there is something that I have missed and wanted me to
22 reconsider, you have to take the required steps within 30
23 days of today's date, or your right to do anything else
24 with respect to this would be lost. Do you have any
1 questions about that, sir?
2 MR. OSTERBUR: No, I don't.
3 THE COURT: Okay, thank you, we'll be in recess.
4 WHEREUPON THESE WERE ALL THE PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THIS CAUSE
5 ON THIS DATE AS HEREIN CONTAINED .
6 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
7 COUNTY OF CHAMPAIGN)
SS
8 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
9 I, Nancy Sivertsen, CSR-CM, Official Court Reporter
10 in and for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Illinois, and the
11 official court reporter who reported the proceedings had in
12 the aforesaid cause on the aforesaid date, do hereby
13 certify that the foregoing Transcript of Proceedings is a
14 true, complete, and correct transcript of all the
15 proceedings had in the aforesaid cause on the aforesaid
16 date as herein contained.
17 Dated this 28th day of September, 1993.
THIS MATERIAL REGARDING THIS CASE 92-C-1222 HAS BEEN SCANNED FROM THE ORIGINAL PRINTED TRANSCRIPT, AND THEN EDITED FOR SCANNING ERRORS, James F. Osterbur NO CHANGES WERE MADE.
ITEM #87
CASE 92-C-1222 BEGINS
Within this case 92-c-1222 there exists claim for constitutional RIGHTS, as defined primarily by the BILL OF RIGHTS,
The following POINTS OF LAW, shall be DISCUSSED pursuant to these issues
1 The constitution IS the LAW OF THIS LAND.
2 The constitution DEFINES what legislatures and courts of law and presidential authority can/will be.
3 The Constitution (Bill of Rights) determines the BOUNDARIES of those in powerful positions and ESTABLISHES THE RIGHTS of every citizen.
4 NO court, NOR president, NOR legislature has power over the constitution, RATHER the constitution has power over these, and every citizen as well.
5 The constitution IS THE LAW of the land, and NO OTHER LAW (as defined by courts, presidents, or legislatures) has power over its fundamental RIGHTS.
6 The citizenry, AS A VAST MAJORITY DOES HAVE POWER, over the constitution, within the realities of one man/woman one vote: after sufficient notice and proper procedure!
7 The elected official works FOR the citizenry OR he/she works against the common good!
FURTHER: BE IT HEREBY KNOWN AND ATTESTED TO AS SUFFICIENT WARNING; The use of language or other, intended for the SOLE purpose of DISCREDITING ME, DEGRADING ME, OR WHICH IS SLANDEROUS OF ME WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
IT IS A REALITY, IF PROVEN: the illegal MONOPOLY over/of human suffering BY the entire medical profession: HAS CLEARLY BEEN ESTABLISHED!
THE HONEST AND COMPLETE PURPOSE of this case 92-C-1222 HAS THEREFORE BECAME: To end the monopoly of the medical profession; and to establish a FAIR and JUSTIFIABLE description of EQUALITY AND HONEST WORK
{INFERRED: to courts refusal and bias is becoming apparent particularly as it relates to the courts unconstitutional refusal to uphold the words in Article 3 section 2. 1. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity......."}
To: Thomas Mamer and Haughey
For: Covenant Medical Center
RE: 92-c-1222
Within your letter dated 6/21/93 you claim to have enclosed copies of your motion and memorandum: IT IS NOT ENCLOSED? send me a copy!
REGARDING THIS CASE
I have enclosed the preliminary brief for your benefit, I have been informed (as stated) that I have one year to complete and present this case before a REASONABLE motion of dismissal shall be heard IF NOT, please advise!
Within this brief there is reference to constitutional issues which may not be immediately clear to you so be advised as follows.
This case has deferred to the cause of your (medical profession) MONOPOLY over me a citizen. The definition of monopoly being: "exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices, and/or something that is the subject of such control, etc.
Your control over me as patient and citizen, ARE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED!
The Bill of Rights and Constitution DEFINE WHAT YOU MAY CONTROL, read them!
The conviction of monopoly places YOU within a number of laws governing monopolies which you, the medical profession currently dismiss, THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE!
The trial issues are to be:
Malpractice: IF (exhibit B) Heparin is common procedure for a patient as described in the physical examination, OR a coverup?
Determination (mental): Apart from all other criteria an accusation has been made against me (slanderous in nature) for which I received NO TRIAL BY JURY that I might defend myself. DELIBERATELY in violation of the Bill of Rights section 1,8,16. THEREBY describing in its entirety a complete monopoly over me!
Extortion: That there is NO definable area apart from serious public trial whereby I may arbitrate FAIRLY over billing differences. CLEARLY DEFINING A MONOPOLY OVER ME!
That exclusive power to control IS FOUND within the medical profession WITHOUT public approval BEYOND what may be considered as NECESSARY
These things and more shall comprise trial 92-c-1222.
MY OFFER TO YOU
I have considered this matter carefully what is shall cost ME, and what it shall cost you!
The term WAR used herein refers to the battles which shall ensue after the trial, during its appeal, and thereafter. I will tell you plainly I intend to challenge YOUR NOT FOR PROFIT STATUS, ETC.
HOWEVER in matters of FAIR and /OR unfair I have decided it is unfair to subject you as a specific entity RATHER than the medical profession as a whole, including you. UNLESS YOU REFUSE THIS OFFER!
LEAVE ME ALONE, mark your account PAID IN FULL, and send a letter of apology to the collection agency and me stating an error in billing was made! In return I will let this case 92-c-1222 remain untouched (NOT DISMISSED) that the court system shall take care of the matter through the issue of time past. (your dismissal is to be dropped).
Your reply IS DUE BY JULY 10, 1993
Be aware I do NOT intend to let these issues drop RATHER this offer is made so that NEITHER YOU OR I must defend them directly, rather they are public issues and should remain public issues. IF YOU CHOSE to defend , I have weighed the cost to me, and I WILL PAY whatever it costs to pursue (socially, financially, or physically)!
James F. Osterbur
6/23/93
ITEM #88
[all exhibits are copied from handwritten text, and should be considered as close as is reasonable, to completely accurate]
EXHIBIT J
JUSTICE
THE RECEIPT OF FAIR (EQUAL) treatment to EVERY PERSON, irregardless of prejudice, pre-conceived idea's, or realities unimportant to a specific event or occurrence.
This paper is about justice sought for each party involved in a specific incident between myself and the corporate entity of covenant medical center. This paper is also about justice sought for each member of society; by communication of matters unjust, that these things may be corrected, defined, and thereby controlled by and for societies benefit.
In a dispute concerning care received, versus money charged, there must be proof of honest service, workmanship, and honorable treatment. I am the recipient of a bill which I do hereby declare as UNJUST (particularly due to the reality I never saw, "was rejected by," the doctor, neither was I referred). NO ONE within the emergency room questioned me at any time regarding any symptom or pain. (I was never spoken to by any of the emergency room staff except the doctor who refused me saying, find someone else). The only other communication to this staff was a moment when four people came quickly, intent upon giving medicine AGAINST my wishes, (I had begun to feel a little better) they said they had to, and after much medicine decided, it was a loose clip on their machine.
The medicine caused me to feel worse (Bad) BUT because of that medicine which I specifically rejected I was admitted into the general hospital. Within a half hour or little more my own body became nervous and it felt like a ring of needles was over my heart NOT drastically hurting at that time but there. These particular nurses listened to my complaint and decided to treat the matter seriously, I received more drugs, this time I accepted.
To this day I do not know whether the pains in the hospital were caused in part by the emergency room medicines or were the recurrence of physical pain. Either way I was literally in physical pain when I entered I was rejected by their doctor, I was totally ignored by the emergency room staff (EXCEPT for a machine which malfunctioned) AND DO feel abused. In my defense; I know I felt physically bad, I know my heart was somehow involved, I know I had one night 3 or 4 weeks after leaving the hospital which was critical to me, and I know I am physically NOT the same as before this occurrence.
I was within the walls of that hospital for 21 hours was charged $2100.00 for my stay. Experienced less than five minutes each, of nursing care from four people I asked NOT to treat me, WAS rejected by a doctor, and was hooked to a machine on two occasions for roughly a minute. My total Emergency room services including everything was NOT over 22 minutes and probably much less. The machine malfunctioned at a clip point terminal. The service I did receive, I asked NOT TO.
I have paid twelve hundred dollars at the agreed upon rate which I feel certain is far beyond justice for services rendered. While in the hospital I received less than two physical hours of nursing care plus a bed and their realistic care and professional service during that time.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF BILLING
EMERGENCY ROOM
staff services 20 minutes time total
medicine (it is NOT known if necessary, was charged approx $120.00
doctor charged $120.00 approx, was NOT paid
emergency room less than 1 hour, I think
HOSPITAL
room 20 hours approx.
nursing services (individual care) 2 hours approx
medicine I don't know if caused by emergency room procedures.
SUMMARY
If I was seriously ILL I should have received the attention of the physician or at least been referred! If I was not seriously ILL, Why was I given serious medicine?
The answer has been decided by both parties differently and must be decided in COURT. Having went to small claims court to file, I am told small claims is not really about people who are billed IMPROPERLY, BUT for people in business, or for whatever reason, cannot collect money which they have billed to someone else. I filed anyway.
THE INJUSTICE
Entry within the emergency room of any hospital requires a signature to pay and a statement which says, they can do anything they want, without liability for what they do (if you're conscious).
EXHIBIT K
To: Covenant Medical Center
Regarding: James Frank Osterbur
In, 1990 july or august, I entered your emergency room and have since sent a letter regarding the treatment I received, a copy is included.
A portion of that letter stated I would pay $1000.00, I have paid $1000.00 plus 12 percent interest or the sum total of $1200.00 according to my records. I WILL PAY NO MORE, regarding this matter! In summary you (the hospital, and its doctors) USED AND ABUSED ME as a patient BOTH financially, personally, and emotionally. Insofar as ANY resemblance to medical care is concerned, apart from the nursing staff, there was NONE.
I have experienced serious physical pains after experience with you, and have survived it, YOU as a hospital are LESS THAN acceptable apart from extreme.
I received NO CARE from anyone but the nurses on 8th floor and WILL NOT PAY for rejection, inappropriate use of drugs, NO DOCTOR, NO ATTEMPT at all to in any manner or way treat ME as a patient/ NOR will I accept the EXTORTION now offered ME. (to sign any contract under duress is extortion.)
I have paid what I consider to be MORE THAN ENOUGH! In retracing the events YOU WILL BE required to prove 5 minutes of time by 2 people, then later 5 minutes of time by 4 people, and 5 minutes of time by someone with a machine (twice) in your emergency room plus altogether NOT more than 45 minutes of nurse assistance throughout my hospital stay of 21 hours was in some manner worth $2000.00 Total man hours in emergency 40 minutes. total hospital man hours 45 minutes plus billing and 10 minutes of blood work. Incidentals not more than 30 minutes (sheets, etc).
I AM WILLING TO PAY A FAIR PRICE for services asked for and RECEIVED, WHICH I HAVE AND MORE! I AM NOT willing to be threatened or extorted. If you fail, I will work personally against you. I DO DEMAND a signed, PAID IN FULL! Which is in all reality MORE THAN I RECEIVED.
James Frank Osterbur
EXHIBIT L
OF CARE AND MEDICINE
LIFE; a word describing a chemical factory called the body and the spirit which gives the body reason. The will to survive is the reality of choice: I want to survive, (because of the happiness I have known).
In the reality of living the body needs care, and may need the care of hands not your own. Care is not money, care cannot truly be bought. Each person who does care about someone else has chosen: This person, this LIFE, has VALUE! NO ONE can buy that decision, it must be accepted. Society itself must choose when, in relation to money, on an equal personal, (NOT FINANCIAL) basis how much we want for ourselves or are willing to pay for another.
Feeling BAD, I asked to be taken to a hospital, I was experiencing CHEST PAIN. Upon arrival a short statement was given me, to be signed. I then waited 20 minutes or more for a nurse to come. The doctor in charge chose not to treat, or examine, or refer me. While in the emergency room, the staff abruptly came and injected me with drugs, it was decided a machine malfunction had occurred. I spent 21 hours total in that hospital during which time I was given medicines for heart problems which I complained of to/by the nursing staff. In summary, I had no doctor, I was never examined by more than a machine, I received medicine which I may or may not have needed and which most certainly affected me in the minutes or hours directly following and may have caused pain and consequently the other drugs administered. If this not so, then my heart was experiencing pain and deserved some resemblance of professional care. Whether, from hospital given drug or from the inside I felt badly for many days afterward, and still am not completely healthy.
In summary: I was charged $150.00 by a doctor who never came within 5 feet of me, nor spent more than 5 minutes, in my presence while telling me. I won't treat you, find someone else!
For being in a hospital 21 hours, I am charged $1962.31. Upon complaining of the bill; a person assigned to the task discovered I was overcharged $70.00 for supplies, I didn't receive.
It is then necessary to pay for the treatment. I am TOLD I WILL PAY at a rate the hospital shall decide, at the interest the hospital will choose. If I do not do as they command, regardless of my situation, or protest, or willingness to pay a realistic amount. They will slander my name, putting name on a list entitled people who don't pay.
To: Covenant Medical Center and Associates
Regarding: James F. Osterbur acct# 0-26945-6
Your staff has failed
the nursing staff was fine!
Upon receiving treatment I am appalled at: I have attempted to reach a realistic conclusion with your billing staff. This packet is sent to you, as well as TV talk show hosts.
(In my mind) The doctor representing you: had NO right to refuse/at least could have referred. I did not come to your facility, JUST TO GIVE YOU MONEY!!!!!
I did NOT COME as a figment of my imagination. I physically felt BAD!!! YOU MAY HAVE MADE THINGS WORSE.
I came fully understanding and expecting to receive reasonable treatment and pay for it.
Your bill is too high
Your doctor is too POOR AND MORE.
I have said $1000.00. I will pay today to call the account PAID IN FULL! Beyond that amount you may take me to court!
IF YOU WISH TO ATTEMPT TO COLLECT THE REST: BE CAREFUL!!! (I will return, the treatment I receive!)
EXHIBIT M
The description of a lIFE: To many, lIFE is defined by what you possess on the outside, the house, car, job, etc. These things are fought for, BUT do not say anything about how it was achieved.
Those things which are on the Inside speak directly about who and why and how. Some people spend their OWN LIVES, in search of these questions. Those who think only of possessions, understand very little about people, even less about lIFE.
When everyone may be whatever they choose without hurting anyone, THEN we shall live in FREEDOM. The word Freedom implies
"I" may proceed with my lIFE in whatever manner I chose without ridicule. A man who spent less than five minutes in my presence, asked only what I ate on the previous day, which I answered correctly, without hesitation. Added to me his own description, during the following 3 weeks I spoke with seven psychiatrists each for no more than fifteen minutes (only one listened at all). I submit, I was a curiosity rather than a patient.
Since I was rejected (because of the label) This much I will say in my own defense: I chose to enter into two main events which are a part of my memory, the first to learn, about what is inside of me. The second to learn of a specific religious parable. Irregardless of how these are perceived I chose to enter, and I chose at every question, even if errors were made!
I will suggest to you, It is NOT irrational to seek understanding of oneself, this lIFE, OR the lIFE to come.
James F. Osterbur
EXHIBIT N
For the purpose of a legal affidavit suitable for court use. I am looking for a medical doctor who agrees with the following:
Any patient who enters an emergency room clear of mind, and in physical distress, DESERVES to be examined by a qualified doctor if one is present. DESERVES to be questioned, OR allowed to state the nature of said physical distress. DESERVES to be heard when refusing treatment.
There will be NO requirement to testify. The entire burden of proof is upon me. The ONLY question or statement or legal consequence is to BE, the above statement.
EXHIBIT O
The difference between a machine and a qualified doctor.
I felt the need to seek medical attention at an emergency room for a physical problem. Being unable to diagnosis MY condition, EXCEPT for my heart was involved, I said I was experiencing a heart attack. The emergency room staff hooked me to a machine, the machine said I was OK so the heart doctor on duty REFUSED to examine or refer me to anyone else. As I began to feel a little worse again I was hooked to a machine again, later four people suddenly came in and injected me with medicine even though I said to them, DON'T I'm starting to feel better, they said they had to, then decided a clip on the monitor was the problem. I then felt worse and was admitted to the hospital, where I again received drugs.
My two BIGGEST COMPLAINTS: NO one in the emergency room asked me anything or was even close enough at anytime for me to talk to (all I knew for sure was I felt badly and, that affected my heart to some degree) I feel it is inexcusable that NOT ONE DOCTOR OR NURSE had the decency to ask what hurt or at least allow me, to say what I felt like/
A machine was MY ONLY DOCTOR and a second machine gave me medicine I didn't want! FOR THIS I am charged full price. The medicine first received may have caused the need for a second dose. I don't know! I do know there are many processes inside a human body and one affects another.
I WAS used, abused, rejected, and refused, and then charged an amount only an EXTORTIONIST would think fair.
I went knowing medicine is a long, long, way from perfect. I went knowing I would be charged an outrageous sum of money.
I did NOT know I would never be examined.
I did NOT know a machine would dispense medicine to me {through the nurses}
I DID fail to realize the full extent of power society has allowed hospitals AND the COMPLETE lack of justice available to the patient.
The court is NOT an answer: FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IS!
James F. Osterbur
ITEM #89
A PREPARED STATEMENT 9/2/93
BY James F. Osterbur
RE: James F. Osterbur V. Covenant Medical Center
case #92-C-1222
A "table of contents" regarding the attempts for justice, to date.
IN BRIEF:
An emergency: Initial cause, can NOT be negotiated, a medical event.
Covenant Med: Completely UNWILLING to listen to my complaint or poor treatment. Refused All attempts, NEVER allowed, even the opportunity, to constructively STATE THE PROBLEMS encountered at covenant. SIMPLY PAY WHATEVER THEY SAY!
Price fixing: The opportunity to discuss billing IS/CAN ONLY BE considered; FAIR TRADE PRACTICE!
Failure of Covenant: to arbitrate over inappropriate billing is CONCLUSIVE!
Not Perfect: Covenant med center makes mistakes, this is only one. This situation demanded MEDIATION.
Small Claims: was considered the most reasonable method to secure a speedy determination of DIFFERENCES
Small Claims: proved unsuitable!
Amended Small Claims: sought MEDIATION through a peer review board; trained doctors from different locations determine fault. THIS WAS DENIED, WITHOUT CAUSE! Even though LAW was supporting, and shown.
A Minor Conflict: over less than $1000.00, HAS become an instrument which will alter my life, as it proceeds through court. Because arbitration and mediation have been denied to me, to date. THIS IS UNFAIR.
EQUALITY: That reality which states, what is FAIR for you, IS FAIR FOR ME: is the simple framework of this pleading.
MONOPOLY: The legislature has allowed the medical community to police itself: IF, I must have a doctor tell/allow me, to take another doctor/hospital to court. They themselves have become their own judge and jury. THIS IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL proceeding.
The Court: to date refuse to mediate this dispute and as such greater pleadings have been issued, as a warning.
Covenant Med: ONLY, at the risk of a multi million dollar lawsuit, made one SHORT, VERY LIMITED, attempt to avoid court.
Covenant Medical center, through their lawyer, HAS requested court proceedings to be enlarged: Covenant being directly handed the legal possibilities AND being fully FOREWARNED of the content and nature these proceeding would take, HAVE chosen.
SUMMARY; this case IS defined by its initial title page. The desire for truth and FAIR play, IS EVIDENT, as well as, CLEAR, that the plaintiff HAS worked in GOOD FAITH toward a FAIR and reasonable SOLUTION.
FOR THE RECORD: NO attempt has been made to cause Covenant ANY UNDUE trouble or expense. They have NOT dealt in good faith with the plaintiff THROUGHOUT.
ANY person complaining of heart problems is in NO position to sign a binding contract. IF conflict arises, it must be dealt with at a later time, dependant upon health.
TO THE COURT: The ISSUES herein have purposely been established in such a manner, as to cause: The MORAL RIGHTS of a public citizen are greater than insignificant, definitions or interpretations of minor infractions, IN EITHER, procedure or LAW.
JUSTICE establishes LAW as a part of Society
Minor infractions divide and destroy when used against the public good.
Beyond the smallest doubt, EACH public citizen IS worth more than any infraction or procedural difference, and IS surely EQUAL TO LAW.
THE LAW IS NOT greater than the citizen. The LAW IS PROVIDED BY THE CITIZEN, capable and intended, to provide JUSTICE FOR ALL!
LAW
IS FOR THE COMMON GOOD, NOT A MECHANISM, BUT A HUMAN REALITY, DEPENDENT ON MUTUAL RESPECT, FOR EACH PERSON
James F. Osterbur
ITEM #90
To: Thomas, Mamer, and Haughey
For: Covenant Medical Center
In response to june 29, 1993 letter I have received NO materials of any kind from you regarding this matter since before march of 1993 NO motion to dismiss NOTHING! except for your one page June 21, 1993 and its certification page. I have underlined your words. I remind you, I have received NO motion to dismiss from you!
SEND THE WORDS!
In response to June 29, 1993 a discussion is unnecessary, those are/will remain the terms. There is only one other option apart from court available to you: The words and descriptions used within the medical records of me are inaccurate and inappropriate and unconstitutional as you altered my life without trial , without, allowance for ANY LEGAL OPTION, which IS; wrongful, demeaning, and slanderous when such terms ascribe meanings and actions detrimental to life itself. That the use of such language has been, HURTFUL to me IS EASILY PROVEN. That NO right exists to: STEAL from me may rights or reputation IS EASILY PROVEN. That medical records are personal, yet mine were used against me, can be proven. Time constraints for bringing a lawsuit against YOU DO NOT apply as the medical terms applied to me were again used by you in the emergency room whereupon this case began and again of hurtful detriment to me within the case 92-s-1561 causing the judge to be less than impartial (a review of the audible tape WILL PROVE THIS). As such and within the reality of work insurance etc, YOU DO afflict and affect me every day: THEREFORE the case is current!
I DO offer only one other option: ERASE all medical records of me, (which would include those held by lutheran general hospital) and return every penny paid in this matter and the emergency room fiasco and the matters involved between you and me will be called legally resolved for good.
James F. Osterbur
7/5/93
To: The Honorable J.G. Townsend
champaign county courthouse
RE: 92-C-1222
I am just informed by letter from Thomas, Mamer, and Haughey: a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support have been filed against this case.
I do hereby declare, "I have received NO such papers", when respectfully requesting said papers, "I was refused" a copy of the letters are sent.
I will assume they were lost in the mail otherwise________, I have again requested these papers and IF denied again shall file contempt motions accordingly.
With regard to case 92-c-1222, this case began as 92-s-1561 a simple money issue, it increased to case 92-c-1222, as a precaution if NO resolution could be found in 92-s-1561, NONE WAS!
I do respectfully request you to read both cases before making and decision.
Although wordy the realities involved are SIMPLE beginning slowly with an honest attempt over LESS than $1000.00 It has increased to the threshold of a multimillion dollar lawsuit covering many of the ills involved in the medical industry. The result of an ABSOLUTE AVOIDANCE of dealing with the issues and their legal responsibility to hear my complaint and produce JUST CAUSE!
A settlement may or may not be made, that IS ENTIRELY THEIR DECISION.
I have proceeded with reasonable haste regarding this case 92-c-1222 as NOTHING could be done until 92-s-1561 was decided. The delay since that time has been involved with work, life, and so on. I do expect to be fully prepared and ready IF NECESSARY within the month of august 1993, they are notified of this, As I represent myself, this IS the best I can do and it is within a one year time frame which I consider my right.
James F. Osterbur
To: David E. Krchak
RE: Osterbur V. Covenant
92-c-1222
Your letter july 12, 1993 is NOT quite correct. The letter beginning "In response to june 29,1993......" Clearly asks for a courtesy from you which was unanswered, prompting the words july 5, 1993. IF they had been sent OR IF the date of the motion had been mentioned, that letter would NOT have been sent.
HOWEVER, I was NOT correct either, due to my lack of formal training, it was assumed the motion dated October 2, 1992 was over as it had been replied to, AND NO FURTHER actions were taken until this time. It was my understanding a motion to dismiss DOES fall within time constraints and that matter was therefore over.
I do hereby apologize for that mistake, WITH the exception that, courtesy extended to me would have meant courtesy extended to you!
Your further statement of "I do not understand.....", seems unlikely to me HOWEVER I will try again: the following conditions are to be met:
1st offer:
YOU MUST
1. leave me alone
2. mark the account statement which instigated this matter PAID IN FULL
3. send a letter of apology to the collection agency and me stating an error in billing was made by Covenant Medical Center.
I WILL IN RETURN
Let this case be dismissed by the court system due to time constraints
I will NOT let it be dismissed by you
I DO NOT offer to drop the issues of a public concern RATHER the personal issues involved shall be discontinued.
2nd offer
INSTEAD of the first offer
YOU MUST
1. ERASE ALL medical records of me including those held by lutheran general hospital and christie clinic where I was sent for tooth extraction and carle hospital where I once applied for work. (they are inaccurate, inappropriate, and unconstitutional)
2. Return every penny paid in this matter, and the emergency room fiasco to me.
I WILL
Accept that the matter is/has been legally resolved for good.
7/14/1993
James F. Osterbur
You have until July 25, 1993 to reply
To: The Honorable J.G. Townsend
champaign county courthouse
The realities involved within case 92-c-1222.
Initiated as a result of my own personal experience within their emergency room (identified: my own case, is as follows)
and (review of Pleading). The treatment received WAS: UNACCEPTABLE!
The original intention, when billing issues arose was SIMPLE: TO STATE WHAT HAPPENED TO ME AND DEMAND SUITABLE ADJUSTMENT, AS IS MY RIGHT!
I approached this matter through the billing department, and various other departments to NO avail. Each said that's the bill PAY IT, NO HEARING to determine IF anything I might say had value: ONLY the bill NOT the PATIENT had value!
Having exhausted all reasonable possibilities through the hospital, I began at small claims court case 92-s-1561 EXPECTING TO BE HEARD. I received only motions to dismiss.
92-s-1561 became, amended case 92-2-1561 again requesting to be heard, and again receiving dismissal with judge Einhorn words (page 9, lines 1-5 transcript by Doncy L. Tracy january 29, 1993). My request was for a peer review: which IS a formal hearing by the medical establishment AND did bring substantial evidence to court.
Case 920-c-1222 then became my formal request for change within the medical establishment as a whole, for the RIGHT TO BE EQUAL, and have stated cause: exhibit J,K, L, AND O.
For this I received another motion for dismissal AND REPLIED; Titled (the issues, and exhibit N).
Now comes the Decision: requiring a partial disclosure of my personal life AS WELL AS, requiring covenant medical center to defend the medical establishment as a whole (the result of which could affect many people.)
I admit to delaying for some time regarding this decision BUT within a reasonable time frame. The realities involved WILL require me to defend and alter my life as well.
Let it be clearly noted I have looked for justice throughout and found very little. This case has then become a citizens demand to be treated according to the words described by constitutional statements (samples are given). MY right to ask is HONESTLY DEFINED on page 18 (a case intent upon life in human terms, NOT medical terms, NOT greed or charity, rather truth, equality and FAIR PLAY.) page 19 further explains the plight and fears of the common citizen. page 21 (workers compensation) define previous supporting judicial intervention. Page 21,22 describes legal (moral) grounds for trial, with the specific intention of controlling: "what IS FAIR AND LEGITIMATE"! Page 23 clearly defines a precedent set by the federal government.
Closing agreements page 23,24 seek to provide a beginning to the respective problems with tangible solutions.
Let it be hereby known and understood EVERY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, was given to, covenant medical center and their controller Serventor. They have chosen of their own free will to enter this lawsuit AND MUST now endure whatever consequences it legitimately requires: They are fully forewarned regarding: The use of media to represent my case, the expectation of using their name to represent the medical profession, the reality of subsequent cases which may or may not have originated from their establishment, to prove a monopoly exists by the medical profession over the common citizen within the context of this case.
In closing the agreements are clear and specific, the RIGHT TO TRIAL IS ABSOLUTE, Jurisdiction as the words (case) is primarily confined to MONEY AND CONTRACTS cannot be denied, the time constraints are INSUFFICIENT for denial!
As to the public aspects, I prefer the words written at the bottom, page 24: "For us ALL, it is written, There is no honor is being sick, NO value over physical health. I/WE are NOT seeking monetary reimbursement, rather we are seeking to live with Courage, Respect, and To HONOR those WE LOVE."
The DEFINITION of this statement is simple: To be EQUAL to those who otherwise attempt to RULE OUR LIVES.
That subsequent monetary reimbursement is now being considered in an amended case 92-c-1222 IS STRICTLY AND SPECIFICALLY the result of arrogance and greed (it is the only method whereby attention could be directed with ANY CERTAINTY to this case, from management). They have viewed and thereby accepted the consequences!
James F. Osterbur
To attorneys: Thomas, Mamer, and Haughey
Regarding: 92-c-1222
I have received your letter dated Oct 2, 1992
And DO REPLY: paragraph 1 "..... It utterly fails to advise the defendant of the basis for this charge." This statement is completely false, as the 25 pages do literally describe exactly, a portion of my own complaint and the cause of action for which this trial has begun: TO CHANGE YOUR CURRENT BILLING PRACTICES in the ways listed within those 25 pages OR in HUMAN TERMS: to methods which provide EQUALITY AND FAIR PLAY to every individual.
This case does depend on the following
1. The hospital environment DOES CONSTITUTE A MONOPOLY upon the Individual.
2. A person involved within the struggle for life and limb in REAL TERMS can NOT BE CONSIDERED legally involved in a free enterprise situation RATHER the definition of extortion is: to force money from a person by intimidation or abuse of authority. Therefore the LAW has been LAX (careless or negligent) regarding the overseeing of these matters AND I AM DEMANDING CHANGE.
And DO REPLY: "paragraph 2 (memorandum) ......the written materials constitute a general and vague harangue....." THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE as the case itself defines the human condition, the problems associated with the average citizen entering a hospital are CLEARLY OUTLINED, THE REALITIES OF TREATMENT AND BILLING ARE SERIOUS (as defined by my own case), the EXPECTED remedy is SPECIFIC!
And DO REPLY: "paragraph 2 (motion) has already filed case # 92-s-1561" I have made every REASONABLE attempt to avoid a lawsuit, IF ANY RESPECT had been shown to me by the defendant PRIOR to this time: THIS LAWSUIT would have been avoided, THE DEFENDANT has chosen. I DO HEREBY REQUEST these two lawsuits be joined; 92-s-1561 to this very lawsuit 92-c-1222, to avoid unnecessary court time!
and DO REPLY: "paragraph 3 (motion).....state a cause of action for healing art malpractice as governed by section 2-622 of the Ill code of civil procedure..." Even the defense acknowledge MY RIGHT TO TRIAL. HOWEVER MY RIGHT is better stated within Illinois code of civil procedure chapter 110 section 2-616 page 527 "..... the supreme court reviewed amendments... the aforementioned provisions were designed to INSURE FAIRNESS to the litigants RATHER than unduly enhance the technical considerations of common law pleadings...."
the provisions of section 2-622 being referred to; HAVE BEEN answered on pages 14 & 15 of the lawsuit 92-c-1222 and evidence listed and EXHIBIT N show an attempt to comply. FURTHER page 13, roman numeral 5 clearly shows lawsuit 92-s-1561 was NEVER FORMALLY commenced.
and DO REPLY: "paragraph 5.....threat to reappear... and will regret it."
These words ARE an attempt to insure the defense HAS ADEQUATE WARNING with regard to my personal life. Further pages 25 & 26 of this lawsuit DECLARE the trial as PUBLIC in every sense. MEANING to the defense and its lawyers, "the medical TERMS and matters NOT SPECIFICALLY NECESSARY TO THIS CASE, in an attempt to SLANDER, OR DEFAME OR DISCREDIT MY LIFE
MAY RESULT IN A LAWSUIT INVOLVING VERY LARGE NUMBERS AS MONETARY COMPENSATION MY RIGHT OF PRIVACY IS CLEAR!
On page 26 I have stated, "I have the skills necessary for this work" these words are NOT to be construed as a legal education RATHER I have learned the MEANING of the words
JUSTICE AND JUSTIFIABLE
and will argue my CASE within these meanings.
I do further state: the use of latin (a foreign language) OR the use of numbers (as might identify isolated phrases) DOES NOT fall within my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS either nationally or of this state: as evidence, the Miranda rights; allow a murderer to go free, if a policeman fails to read him/her their rights in a manner which they UNDERSTAND!
That I have a RIGHT TO TRIAL and its remedy: As a citizen of Illinois; section 1, 2, 12, 13, and 23, of the Ill Constitution ALL SPEAK TO THIS RIGHT AND CAUSE.
James F. Osterbur
To: Thomas, Mamer, and Haughey
RE: Osterbur V. Covenant
92-c-1222
The issues involved WILL be resolved.
The words sent by me may appear as "general and vague harangue" to you, at this time, BUT I assure you they are not.
Case 92-c-1222 IS written with the public in mind, IS intent upon empowering the public with concepts for altering specific aspects of medical "business", and written for media "30 second, video segments as well as talk show formats".
The matter is settled then and we shall enter court and MEDIA REVIEW.
Irregardless of the outcome of case 92-c-1222 WE SHALL MEET IN COURT. If case 92-c-1222 is dismissed, this case and case 92-s-1561 shall be combined into the final case (CAUSE) which will be described as: A CASE TO REMOVE THE MONOPOLY OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION FROM ME AND FROM US ALL. 92-c-1222 and 92-s-1561 shall be my evidence and therefore every word shall be scrutinized closely.
From time to time I will send to you the questions you will NEED to answer, that you may be prepared, and choose your witness.
I do intend to bring forth issues in a timely manner and shall expect early fall as the appropriate time for hearing.
You are requested to take the matter seriously. I DO intend to allow other cases which clearly show "Monopoly" to be included in this action and have included the contract which I will be using. These are cases, NOT people, which shall be included.
Insofar as my, "RIGHT TO TRIAL", I DO redirect your attention to the pages titled (the RIGHT , as a citizen to confront injustice) a reprint is included.
That I received POOR TREATMENT BENEATH, an acceptable standard, is clearly written: (my own case is as follows, and the review of Pleading).
That covenant medical center has NEVER made ANY acknowledgment of my case or cause or person until the letter june 29,1993 and then only when confronted SERIOUSLY!
That case 92-s-1561 is the initial cause for case 92-c-1222 is completely clear. That case was heard 12/3/1993.
That I am NOT a lawyer is NOT cause to discredit my case OR sufficient reason to confine me to a timetable that is UNFAIR. Those who are private citizens REQUIRE far more time than those who are paid.
The writing "now come the attempt for adequate judicial intervention, and an examination of judicial process," CLEARLY SHOW, I, AM WORKING WITHIN THE LAW, AND: beyond and because of, a simple billing dispute (as initially entered 92-s-1561) this case 92-c-1222 has become VERY EXTENSIVE and as such AND particularly within the PUBLIC nature of this case SUFFICIENT TIME to prepare IS NOT ONLY MY RIGHT, BUT MY DEMAND!
The cause IS CLEAR! The evidence is ready
James F. Osterbur
7/21/93
The RIGHT, as a citizen to confront injustice.
It is the SOLDIER who bought every right, every part, every day that FREEDOM, to choose, to be able; DESCRIBE LIFE AS REALITY, RATHER THAN, as living someone else's reality.
It is only the Vietnam War, when the individual, the man or woman was remembered on a simple wall, as this one GAVE THEIR LIFE, for your FREEDOM. There are NO POLITICS in the DEATH OF A SOLDIER, these men and women did NOT, have anything to do with why they were there, apart from citizenship!
It is written in the Bill of Rights of this country section 3. That government, is or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community;.....
It is in these words that men and women went to war, believing what the politicians did say to us all! That soldiers died for the sake of this nation and for the HONORABLE CAUSE, to help others.
The realities of war are: Those with HONOR are only a number in the words of a commander BUT THESE INDIVIDUALS PAID FOR FREEDOM WITH BLOOD, SWEAT, AND TEARS (THOSE OF EVERY WAR)!
I have come to court within the BLESSINGS OF FREEDOM (to choose peaceful arbitration of what is clearly a public controversy). As a individual citizen I DO CLAIM MY RIGHT, according to the Bill of Rights section 11: That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by JURY is preferable to any other, and ought to be held SACRED.
The cost of a nation is PAID by the INDIVIDUAL, THE REASON: to choose "which rights DO pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government"! (taken from the introduction to the Bill of Rights).
A REPLY TO 8/2/93
1. The foundation is SIMPLE: I/WE have a moral and legal RIGHT to contest inappropriate billing. By anyone, including the medical profession. I have CLEARLY SHOWN (the lawyer mailing are PROOF) covenant medical center has NOT dealt with me legally, as they have denied me my RIGHT to be heard regarding said inappropriate billing. The court is then obligated, and my time required for what should have been a very simple matter. The bill in question cannot be construed as voluntary, do to medical realities and as such, NO cause or case exists to state these matters were previously addressed.
2. Whatever the plaintiff is able to prove is for a courtroom (TRIAL) to decide. At this moment, section 2-622 does NOT apply as the fundamental case is: BILLING RIGHTS.
IT IS REAL however to expect the amended case as has been previously suggested, shall expand this case accordingly.
3. My rights have been violated and I have repeatedly stated: THIS MUST CHANGE, that whosoever NEEDS to arbitrate their bill WILL find it possible to do so, WITHOUT the NEED of a courtroom.
The cognizable cause of action IS: (initially IN PART, HARASSMENT)
I have been charged MONEY, a bill which I do NOT owe, they have REFUSED to arbitrate, to listen, to accept responsibility, to justify, to clarify, OR to accept their responsibility under LAW, to respectfully allow this matter be resolved under jurisdiction by the court.
HARASSMENT is warranted by their absolute failure to recognize that, "I" DO have the RIGHT to demand justification of the charges (billing) brought against me. They, covenant medical center, HAVE REFUSED ALL ATTEMPTS/ALL REQUESTS, to formally examine, all attempts to informally examine, and are attempting to DERAIL all attempts to legally examine these actions and this billing in question.
Subsequent to formal legal actions, attempts have been made by collection agency's to collect even though the matter is clearly, legally, pending through the court.
HARASSMENT is evident by the simple words: I cannot legally be charged for work which cannot/IS NOT/WAS NOT justified, particularly due to a signature, made under duress.
This entire case has been about EQUAL RIGHTS, if I can be charged, I have the RIGHT to ask, "WHAT FOR", AND DEMAND an answer.
James F. Osterbur
8/16/93
The change REQUIRED, by the lack of justice, prompted by inappropriate treatment, the failure of equitable solutions, and the uneducated DENIAL OF LAW; have BECOME the only reasons for my decision to end the search for a fair, gentle, and peaceful solution to these problems. It has become NECESSARY to end peaceful arbitration and ENGAGE in serious WAR, through LAW AND JUSTICE AND JUSTIFIABLE!
Although case 92-s-1561 began and ended as a billing dispute, it cannot be said JUSTICE was served. Meant as peaceful arbitration over an inappropriate bill, this case began when after many efforts, by the plaintiff, to be heard by the hospital staff failed without the slightest indication, I the plaintiff had ANY RIGHTS, regarding ANY MATTER involved. According to the hospital my rights (cause for complaint) ended upon signature to the admittance form. I did, clearly ask the hospital staff for arbitration (a chance to be heard, indicating I HAD BEEN TREATED BADLY) on several occasions, with different people, EACH OCCURRENCE brought the same result: "I" a patient have NO RIGHTS, PAY THE BILL at our interest rate, on our schedule, as we see fit! (NO HEARING, NO OBJECTION, NO COMPLAINTS; PERIOD)
When the letter from covenant medical center came indicating: IF I did not pay the remaining amount, I felt to be UNJUST, they would give my name to a collection agency. Herein began the search for true JUSTICE: for I paid for services I received at their price; It is for abuse, mistreatment, denial, rejection, slander, and failure I have refused to pay! Clearly I am the defendant RATHER THAN the plaintiff, in this matter, even though I was forced to begin the proceedings!
Case 92-s-1561 began as a billing dispute was enlarged because the billing dispute failed, to become case 92-c-1222. Unfortunately case 92-s-1561 remained BUT had a purpose. It became my intent to change the billing procedures of the medical profession at large, within case 92-c-1222, as defined within those (these) words. As it became necessary to pronounce at the hearing for case 92-s-1561: The most probable cause for the poverty of my treatment within the emergency room (that began this trial) is the word, attached to MY LIFE and left there, by "mercy hospital of urbana IL" NOW COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER", some years ago! WITHOUT MY CONSENT, WITHOUT ANY HEARING OR TRIAL, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST POSSIBILITY OF BEING HEARD OR the opportunity to give ANY EXPLANATION IN MY DEFENSE, AT ANY TIME!
At the hearing, case 92-s-1561 although clear testimony was given within the court papers; including photocopies of the law, a description of how this LAW or mandate of the Social Securities Act applies to ME and to this case; during my attempt to lay a FOUNDATION FOR CAUSE, I was interrupted by judge Einhorn who was clearly about to give judgement, NECESSITATING an end to the reasoning and primary reasons which brought about the amended complaint 92-s-1561, INSTEAD it was required to RELY ON LAW! Judge Einhorn, declared I don't understand how this law applies, DID NOT ALLOW ME TO EXPAND, DID NOT DECLARE ANY CONTRARY LAW OR REASON (LAW) WHICH EXCLUDED MY CLAIM, AND MADE JUDGEMENT, against me!
Amended case 92-s-1561 was introduced to provide a quiet arena (THE PEER REVIEW), required by LAW, and to provide money to cover the debt left by case 92-c-1222, in its previous form. I did NOT feel it to be prudent to contest the judgement against me considering case 92-c-1222 WAS/is yet to come. The previous purpose to case 92-c-1222 was merely to engage in matters of public importance, in a public forum, to begin a public debate over the issues as depicted by case 92-c-1222, AND to obtain some form of justice regarding my own case. BECAUSE, THE LAW was rejected, and a peer review is NO longer possible, the possibility of a trial without the description attached to me, within my own personal medical files, is/HAS BECOME impossible. It is for THIS REASON, that case 92-c-1222 IS HEREBY ENLARGED, to include DAMAGES:
For failure to provide a forum suitable to the relief of matters such as these $10,000.00
For injection of drugs against my wishes, lack of attention which resulted in drugs being given, by the emergency room staff $10,000.00
For Slander and rejection without an examination by the staff heart doctor $1,000,000.00
For EXTORTION: Defined by; a contract signed under DURESS FOR WHICH NO ALTERNATIVE EXISTED beyond this lawsuit, regarding money that was NEVER OWED $1,000,000.00
For unlawful victimization of MY LIFE through the use of a medical term for which; I WAS ALLOWED NO SAY, NO TRIAL OR HEARING, NO RIGHTS OF ANY KIND, AND WHICH IS WRONGFUL DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, SLANDER, DEMEANING OF MY LIFE AND A CLEAR USURPATION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW and VIOLATES nearly every section of the Bill of Rights. $7,000,000.00
BE IT HEREBY KNOWN: I AM THE ACCUSED, THE BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING the medical term, I am accused of, BELONGS TO COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER!
These damages are the DIRECT RESULT OF JUDGEMENTS by the hospital staff, made without the slightest conception of JUSTICE!
These damages are sought NOT as personal gain, RATHER all but $30,000.00 (a years' salary) will be given to Christian charities for medical relief. Those who feel the numbers are inappropriate NEED only look at charges by the medical profession. I WILL REDUCE THE NUMBERS BY WHATEVER PERCENTAGE THE HOSPITAL WILL REDUCE AND MAINTAIN, THEIR RATES.
ITEM #91
MY OWN HISTORY (in part)
RE: 92-C-1222
I am REQUIRED to defend, or to pay extortion, OTHERWISE my own dignity will be trampled.
I, James F. Osterbur, walk according to my own designs and desires. MY PURPOSE IS TO LEARN AND TO LIVE according to MY BELIEF IN
JESUS OUR SAVIOR
I will remind whosoever reads these words: It is NOT up to you to decide, or describe ANY ASPECT OF MY LIFE, I AM FREE TO CHOOSE, TO DEFINE, AND TO DESCRIBE; JUST AS YOU, and your life.
To begin, there are those who say I am less capable than they to define life, its experience, or my own. These argue, I do not differentiate accurately between what is REAL and what is NOT. I have been described as incapable of REASON without their help and should be dependant upon their drugs.
They could NOT BE MORE WRONG!
A quick and simple definition of this portion of lawsuit 92-c-1222 IS: DOES ANYONE have the RIGHT to make these types of decisions OR DOES THE ACCUSED have a RIGHT to defend him/herself BEFORE A JURY: PRIOR, to being subjected to such defamation of character, SLANDER, and so on?
THIS IS THE ONLY QUESTION: to be decided within this lawsuit 92-c-1222 CONCERNING ME!
AND
IS, a question of LAW (constitutional AND MORAL AND SOCIAL)! THE QUESTION: WHO DETERMINES YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE, FOR YOUR OWN LIFE: The Law "social" determines, IF one person has harmed another. the Law "moral" determines, whether actions by one party were MEANT TO CAUSE harm to another. The Law "constitutional" determines what IS RIGHT OR WRONG based upon the words fought for, WITH BLOOD!
Clearly I have NOT acted in any manner which applies to these LAWS!
Clearly, I am the accused!
THE LAW STATES: the Accused IS INNOCENT until proven guilty. THEREFORE the question to be decided IS: DID I harm any other person? DID I willfully intend to cause anyone else harm? DID I OR DID I NOT, HAVE THE RIGHT, to pursue my own interests in my own way?
These questions ARE the true and full extent of the LAW as it applies to the REALITY AND CONSEQUENCE OF, THE MEDICAL PRACTICE OF: BELITTLING LIFE, through terminology or descriptions from doctors, hospitals, medical personnel, which RIGHT OR WRONG follow and to an extent control; without so much as a legal complaint or objection by the person MOST DIRECTLY INVOLVED.
Medical files ARE NOT private and personal, BEFORE I ever saw people whom I wanted to understand, they had already been given descriptions of me which did NOT apply, making it IMPOSSIBLE to be heard. Medical records are required BUT can NEVER BE the description of anyone's LIFE.
These words apply: to the formal description of MONOPOLY (which is, an exclusive control over people and price).
The QUESTION BEGINS: Where was/is MY RIGHT to contest this JUDGEMENT OVER ME?
IF, such a RIGHT exists, WHY are patients untold?
WHY: IS THE QUESTION, which goes beyond the description of circumstance, and enters the complexity of human life.
It IS NOT A RIGHT, to know, what ANY OTHER PERSON defines as their life. IT IS GOSSIP to guess.
The QUESTION: DOES the medical profession have the RIGHT TO DEFINE, OR IS LIFE TOO COMPLEX? CAN YOU be accurately defined; by someone else AND labeled for LIFE thereafter, OR IS THAT an exclusive control over people?
The reality is SIMPLE: DOES THE PATIENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE, LEGALLY? OR IS whatever the medical profession DECREE'S, the last say, irregardless of the patient.
REMEMBER THE LAW: the accused is innocent until proven guilty, therefore it may be possible for the medical profession to legally describe someone BUT NOT without a legal hearing or trial or RIGHT to appeal. The question here is: YES OR NO?
Addressing the MORE COMPLEX ISSUES of behavioral traits, thought patterns, and freewill choice comes the DECISION: WHO HAS THE RIGHT, TO LIVE ANY INDIVIDUAL'S LIFE? I personally do NOT agree with the choice of GREED, which is the desire for money without cost OR RIGHT, it is clearly a desire for control (POWER) over others.
The corporate entity of covenant med center adheres to this description throughout this case, to date. SHOULD A CORPORATE ENTITY BE ALLOWED CONTROL OVER AN INDIVIDUAL? SHOULD WE (the public) DEMAND CONTROL over the corporate entity?
Corporations DO NOT provide jobs for people, people provide jobs for people!
A corporation is: a few words written and registered legally to describe the activities to be undertaken.
The corporate entity of covenant med center describes itself as, "NOT FOR PROFIT," DOES THEIR BEHAVIOR DEPICT THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY OR DO THEY USE THEIR STATUS FOR MONETARY GAIN? AN EXAMINATION of their records and BILLING PRACTICES show their ways: DOES, "NOT FOR PROFIT", MEAN "profiting on prescriptions, charges beyond costs for rooms, dumping existing structures outside of previous agreements, spending excess money for wages, perks, or a very few at the top management, for bonuses? IS THAT what, "NOT FOR PROFIT" MEANS?
The question here remains: DOES an exemption from Income Taxes entitle the holder: excessive income levels, structures that are "gold-plated", or methods that abuse the public trust?
A better description is: An exemption shall produce equitable solutions, in all area's, for the giver AND those receiving AND BE FAIR, to the public at large. Equitable MEANS,
"A FAIR AND LEVEL AND JUSTIFIABLE METHOD, for dealing with EACH PERSON".
Returning to the question of legal practice. DOES terminology defined by the medical profession produce legally binding actions upon the individual? IF, any term (description) follows an Individual throughout their LIFE, CAN influence work, social desires, cause preconceptions by family, friend, associate, or people hired, THEN it has been inescapably bound to that individual, by those RESPONSIBLE for that description.
The question here: LEGALLY, who has the RIGHT to describe someone; Even the criminal gets a trial!
The fundamental ISSUE IS NOT a specific description, RATHER it IS THE LEGAL AND SPECIFIC RIGHT, TO DISAGREE AND BE HEARD, BEFORE, being subjected to slander, defamation of character, ETC!
The medical profession is NOT by itself SUFFICIENT, to determine what will remain, for the patient, a lifetime. In ALL AREA'S of human behavior or illness, what does NOT affect the public, by a test of law, IS NONE of the public's' concern, NOR do these areas' allow discretionary terminology by anyone. FREEDOM: IS the RIGHT TO CHOOSE! Being subjected to criticism, legal or medical terminology, etc, in area's NOT THE PUBLIC'S' CONCERN: CLEARLY DEFINE an exclusive control (monopoly) over the individual!
The ISSUE: when IS IT correct, and under what circumstances allowed, for the medical profession or others, TO INTERVENE in someone's LIFE (OR THE PUBLIC'S)?
The more correct answer: IS DEFINED BY LAW (social, moral, and constitutional) BUT may include activities specifically intended to DEGRADE LIFE, FOR THE PUBLIC.
MY FUNDAMENTAL DEFENSE to the medical establishment: IS most clearly written in constitutional law; that being the Bill of Rights, section 16: "That religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men/women are EQUALLY ENTITLED TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. Other sections apply as well!
I, DO HEREBY STATE: The actions and re-actions, are "Religious" in origin AND do define a personal trait being, I desire knowledge regarding life and death issues, and DO pursue this knowledge with an open desire. I view life and death to be sufficient evidence that these matters are IMPORTANT.
What occurs in this quest is NOT dependant upon what is known, RATHER departure from the designs and ways of men/women allow for investigation into the inner realities. These things define SELF, and bring understanding. Wisdom follows.
To, THOSE WHO READ: BEWARE, of how YOU interpret these words (above)! The RULES are different! The INTENSITY EXTREME! YOU, may choose to enter BUT, YOU shall NOT choose beyond (how, when, where, what or why!
JESUS
DOES watch over these realities! Those who believe ARE SAVED before, during, and after, ONLY the literal ACCEPTANCE of your belief is NECESSARY!
THE RULES
There are NO sacrifices to be made!!!!!
YOU CAN NOT INTERPRET; the answers will be given in time!
YOU can NOT depend upon ANY visual, hearing, or preconceived expectation! ONLY FAITH IS YOUR GUIDE, NEVER GIVE UP !!!!!!!!
Prepare in prayer and praise to JESUS
DO NOT FEAR
BELIEVE IN JESUS
As to my own experience, I have made MANY mistakes, REPENTED, and went forward.
Even the little things are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. If YOU fail, GET UP, REPENT (I will DO, MY BEST, not to let this happen again, AND make repairs), and GO FORWARD!
SIMPLY PUT: LEARN, DO, AND LIVE
DO NOT TRY, YOU WILL FAIL: DO YOUR BEST, YOU WILL DO WELL!
O the many things I have learned: JESUS HAS SAVED EVERYONE, (that work is DONE)!
They need ONLY TO ACCEPT THEIR SALVATION, AS REAL! AS IMPORTANT! AS TRULY DESIRABLE! AND LIVE ACCORDINGLY!
NEVER sacrifice, NOT for LOVE either, LOVE NEEDS NO SACRIFICE.
NEVER act or react in ways that do not clearly identify
JESUS OUR SAVIOR IS ALIVE!
BE AT PEACE, with your own humanity!
REMEMBER what you DO have, NOT what you DON'T!
DO NOT BE CONCERNED about ANY portion or part of an existence BANISHED FROM YOUR LIFE
BY THE
FATHER
THROUGH
JESUS
NEVER INTERPRET, yOU either understand OR yOU don't!
BELIEVE as if your LIFE depended upon
JESUS OUR SAVIOR
Regarding my own medical history, I DO DEFEND AS FOLLOWS: As it regards two false teeth which I purposely knocked out; having entered into an unfamiliar experience (by choice), and under NO DURESS to do so, I went examining. The cost, to disregard how others saw me!
Through the first minutes or hours the image/words proved false and I was at ease. It was at this point an image challenged me to knock out those front teeth and I turned and forcefully declared: JESUS gave his life for me and I WILL NOT sacrifice anything! The image replied, those are false teeth and defile because they are false.
It is at this point that trouble began. The FIRST mistake was defending anything. I/WE DO have the RIGHT to choose what we believe (Right or Wrong) and that which is of the
FATHER
DOES NOT, need to be defended by yOU or I!
The instant I had turned to answer, I had also entered within the journey to come. The first battle was over, who owned this body (my body) and what RIGHT did I have to use or alter anything regarding this body. My answer (at that time) was, I DON'T KNOW, The body or this "house" wherein I live IS , WITHOUT DOUBT, a gift to me BY OUR
CREATOR!
The question: whose body is it TRULY, and IS there a boundary? An open statement: IF there had NOT been false teeth, I assure yOU with NO DOUBT real teeth would NOT have been removed!
MY answer at that time was, "I better NOT take any chances and removed the false teeth". A BAD MISTAKE!
This body IS OURS to use with complete freedom! False teeth are OK!
YOU/I WILL NEVER BE ASKED TO SACRIFICE ANYTHING BY
OUR FATHER1
For me, the journey continued through the realities of my own choices. MOST IMPORTANT that I MUST ACCEPT the FAITH I have in JESUS AS OUR SAVIOR
BEYOND ANY DOUBT, and live accordingly.
Included in the first medical report is an experience from earlier life. Confronted by three who made threatening gestures I moved to the middle of a small crowd fo people, one came forward and again moved/acted in threatening ways. I was able to gain time to search for an answer and remembered, "the bible writes LOVE thine enemy", and at that moment chose to do so! SUDDENLY, "in the vision of my mind" a light like NO OTHER appeared above me, coming down to me, and I needed only to raise my arms to receive it. As I began a voice from nowhere said, "what if your wrong"? And I thought and the light stopped, I then assumed my opportunity was over, "too late" but the light remained until I became hesitant and then returned. I was angry, sad, happy, etc for a very short time thereafter. Angry that I let the influence of others affect me, sad that so great an opportunity was lost, happy that I was noticed, and more. I am sorry to say poor/wrong choices ensued. NOT every situation can be dealt with through LOVE, BUT everyone should have their dignity left intact.
The final journey written of me in medical records concerns the 23rd psalm. The question being, "IS THIS CORRECT?"
Because my answer IS different, from the church, as a step by step walk through the descriptions given by the psalm compared to the rest of the bible, it will be withheld. My purpose IS NOT to disrupt, BUT I will write; the 23rd psalm is a part of the old testament, when
JESUS
came the old testament changed and
JESUS
became OUR SAVIOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not the 23rd psalm!
Regarding the experience to me, I entered willingly, the journey required more than expected BUT, DID NOT harm me, at its end I was given the choice: MY Pride OR a serious mistake. I chose to throw away Pride!
To these I will add one other event, some years later while traveling many, many little things began to go wrong, after/by the third I became certain something was wrong with me, looking closely I found I was turning cold (NOT being as compassionate as I want to be. RATHER reacting to the ways I had been treated)
Upon realizing my LIFE as I have chosen it to be, AND has been given to me to be, needed fixing, I quickly returned to people are IMPORTANT, and I do desire to be accepted. IF, yOU do not live within/yOU live outside.
These answers are NOT questions! These answers are the FREEDOM of my Soul to inquire within my choices, my life and my experience. These answers are my own and DO NOT NEED approval! These answers DO demonstrate REASONING AND LOGIC, whether there is agreement over their validity or NOT. IF YOU can NOT fully define life and death and eternity AND produce reasonable results that CLEARLY, UNDENIABLY (in terms the average person can identify with) provide evidence for YOUR position (whatever that may be: THEN THE BELIEFS', MY OWN WAYS, and the ISSUES they represent, can NOT be denied OR ridiculed, OR used in ANY way against ME: at that is/would be SLANDER, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, HARASSMENT, AND SO FORTH!
THIS IS A CLEAR WARNING!
THE QUESTION: WHO DECIDES, WHO DETERMINES, THE SOUL?
James F. Osterbur
ITEM #92
Retyped for electronic transfer space
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILL
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT
CASE 92-C-1222
FILED OCT 2, 1992
MOTION TO DISMISS
Now comes the defendant, covenant medical center, by its attorneys, thomas mamer, & haughey, and hereby enters its appearance and moves to dismiss the complaint filed in this action under sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Ill code of civil procedure (Ill revised statutes chapter 110, paragraphs 2-615 and 2-619) and as said motion, state as follows:
1. The written materials provided in this case including 25 pages of dialogue labeled "a case intent upon life in human terms, not medical terms, not greed or charity RATHER truth, equality and fair play" fails to state any legally cognizable cause of action against the defendant in this case. It utterly fails to advise the defendant of the basis for this charge.
WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that this honorable court dismiss this cause of action under the provisions of section 2-615 of the Ill code of civil procedure.
2. The plaintiff has already filed case 92-s-1561 purporting to allege damages arising out of treatment received at defendant medical center.
WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that this suit be dismissed under section 2-619 (a) (3) (Ill revised statutes chapter 110, paragraph 2-619 a3).
3. The written materials filed in this matter might be liberally construed to state a cause of action for healing art malpractice as governed by section 2-622 of the Ill code of civil procedure (Ill revised statutes chapter 110, paragraph 2-622). None of the written materials provided in this case comply with the provisions of section 2-622 of the ill code of civil procedure.
Respectfully submitted
David E. Krchak
retyped for electronic transfer space
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, IL
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT
CASE 92-C-1222
FILED OCT 2, 1992
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
Now come the defendant, covenant medical center, by thomas, mamer, haughey, its attorneys, and in support of its motion to dismiss states as follows:
1. The written materials filed in this matter bear no relation in form or content to any statement of a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The written materials fail to allege any breach of responsibility or a violation of any laws on the part of the defendant. Further, the written materials do not request any judgment against the defendant.
2. The written materials constitute a general and vague harangue against the healthcare system in the United States today.
3. This "suit" follows on the heels of a pending small claims case the plaintiff has already filed against the defendant.
4. If these materials are given every indulgence, they might be construed to be a cause of action for healing art malpractice. The plaintiff does not follow the requirements of the Ill code of civil procedure which seek to preclude frivolous claims for malpractice.
5.The plaintiff concludes his written materials with a threat to reappear if his requests are not granted (page 25) and a further threat that anyone who does not follow his dictates will regret it (page 26).
WHEREFORE, the defendant prays that this purported cause of action be dismissed immediately, with prejudice and with costs to the defendant.
Respectfully submitted
David E. Krchak
retyped for electronic transfer space
THOMAS MAMER & HAUGHEY
LAWYERS
DATED JUNE 21, 1993
THE HONORABLE J. G. TOWNSEND
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY COURTHOUSE
101 E MAIN ST. ROOM 354
URBANA IL 61801
RE 92-C-1222
DEAR JUDGE TOWNSEND
Enclosed are copies of the complaint, a motion to dismiss and a memorandum in support of motion to dismiss filed in this matter. I have been advised by the circuit clerk's office that chancery cases are not designated to particular judges until the cause is set for hearing.
While this matter does not technically fall into those cases considered in your letter of March 3, 1993, I have taken the liberty of enclosing a proposed scheduling order regarding my motion to dismiss. If this is not appropriate for this case please advise. You will note that I do not need any additional time to file my first brief since it has been on file now for a few months.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. if another judge or another procedure is appropriate, kindly advise.
Sincerely
David E. Krchak
retyped for electronic transfer space
THOMAS MAMER & HAUGHEY
LAWYERS
DATED JUNE 29, 1993
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
DEAR MR. OSTERBUR
This is in response to materials received from you on June 25, 1993. I sent you a copy of my letter to judge Townsend for your information. The materials enclosed with the letter to the judge have already been provided to you. Those materials are as described in the letter to the judge.
You are incorrect that you have one year to complete and present a case before a reasonable motion to dismiss will be heard. That is not the law.
As a part of your materials you include what I would term to be an offer of settlement. You indicate that if we would provide you with a bill marked "paid in full" with an apology to you and an explanation to the credit bureau, you would not pursue this matter further against covenant medical center. If this is indeed your offer and if it would include dismissing this suit in its entirety, I would be willing to discuss it with you.
Sincerely
David E. Krchak
retyped for electronic transfer space
J. G. TOWNSEND
CIRCUIT JUDGE
COURTHOUSE, URBANA IL
SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, IL
DATED JULY 5, 1993
MR. DAVID E. KRCHAK MR. JAMES F. OSTERBUR
THOMAS MAMER & HAUGHEY 2191 CR 2500E
30 MAIN ST ST. JOSEPH, IL 61873
BOX 560
CHAMPAIGN IL 61820-0560
RE; OSTERBUR VS. COVENANT
CASE 92C1222
DEAR MR. KRCHAK AND MR. OSTERBUR
I note that there is a pending motion to dismiss previously filed in this matter and a memorandum in support of the same. While the administrative order of Feb 1, 1991, reciting categories of cases assigned to judges indicates that chancery matters are to be before judge Miller, it is true that all judges can handle such matters. I am advised that judge Miller will be unable to afford a setting in this matter for some period of time, therefore, in order to advance the matter, I have today entered an order which appears on the docket of the cause as follows:
"Court notes previously filed motion to dismiss and supporting memoranda. Court orders that plaintiff, James F. Osterbur, make any filings which he desires to make in connection with the pending motion within 21 days of today's date.
Movant thereafter may file any reply material within 7 days
All original filings are to be made with the clerk of the court. Courtesy copies of the filings are to be provided to Judge Townsend and counsel for other parties of record.
Hearing on pending motion allotted for Friday, September 3, 1993 at 11:00 am in courtroom C. See correspondence to parties and counsel providing notice of said setting."
Osterbur vs covenant
July 5, 1993
please consider this correspondence as your notice of entry of the order described in the docket entry as well as notice of the scheduled hearing
Very truly yours J.G. Townsend circuit judge
retyped for electronic transfer space
THOMAS MAMER & HAUGHEY
LAWYERS
DATED JULY 12, 1993
MR. JAMES F. OSTERBUR
RE; OSTERBUR V. COVENANT
CASE 92-C-1222
DEAR MR. OSTERBUR
This is in response to materials received from you. Enclosed are copies of the motion to dismiss and memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss filed last October. Copies of those were sent to you last October. I am providing you with these additional copies as a courtesy to you.
Your letter to judge Townsend on July 5, 1993, was not appreciated. I have never refused to send you anything. Further your snide allusion that perhaps we had never sent this to you was in poor taste.
I do not understand what it is that you want as far as any "settlement" in this matter. I do not see any point in continuing discussions about it. I trust that you have received the court's correspondence and I will be prepared to argue this motion to dismiss on sept 3, 1993
Very truly yours
David E Krchak
retyped for electronic transfer space
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY IL
FILED AUG 2, 1993
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
DEFENDANT
CASE 92-C-1222
REPLY OF DEFENDANT
Now comes the defendant, covenant medical center, by thomas mamer& haughey, its attorneys, and in reply to the pleading filed by the plaintiff in this matter and pursuant to this court's docket entry of July 5, 1993 states as follows:
1. the pleading filed by the plaintiff in this case shows no basis for any relief requested.
2. Plaintiff states that the treatment received from the defendant was unacceptable, yet provides no support for this claim either factually or as required by section 2-622 of the Il code of civil procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-622).
3. Given every possible favorable construction, the complaint and the "realities involved within case 92-c-1222 fail to state any cognizable cause of action.
Respectfully submitted
David E. Krchak
ITEM #93 CIRCUIT COURT 92-1561
AMENDED CLAIMS 92-S-1561
The desire for a FAIR appraisal of services rendered.
THE ISSUES
WHY must I pay, when the payment and credit agreement, WHEN PROPERLY VIEWED, as signed by a person experiencing SERIOUS PHYSICAL DISTRESS, CAN NOT be considered a free enterprise decision.
There is NO determination to say NO BILL is due RATHER after a period of time and self healing it is NOW time to come to a reasonable decision REGARDING: HONEST MONEY OWED for services rendered! As I am NOW able to defend MY RIGHT!
There is a philosophy common to many which says "PAY the doctor, hospital, etc ANYTHING, what good is money if your dead."
I personally believe in FAIR AND EQUITABLE dealings in EVERY MATTER. Meaning honest work will be done at a FAIR wage. The description of serious physical pain is NOT a license to STEAL, yet will refuse to sign their papers when life, health, mobility, work, and so much more DEPENDS on reasonable HEALTH.
I have tried to discuss with the hospital on several occasions, with several different people the REALITY that I think this bill is unjust. EACH ONE clearly said "I" have no rights pay the bill on our terms, period.
TAKEN FROM ACTIVE ORDERS REGARDING MY CASE, as provided by Covenant Medical Center
Admitted 1:33PM time involved; approximately 10 minutes of time (1) person
Was helped to main emergency room at 3:12PM approx 10 min (1) person
Given injection 3:32 approx 5 minutes (were 4 nurses)
says given oxygen Fails to say was refused
Moved to hospital 8th floor
nursing assistance 2:25- 2:51 given pill
nursing assistance 10:33 PM time approx 15 minutes
Blood work 12:28 5:59 12:48 3:13
portable chest x-ray 1:00 5 minutes 1 person
To the Defendant: Covenant Medical Center
The deliberate and willful disregard for JUSTICE, within the confines of a FAIR and legal billing dispute: ARE the entire cause and legal action contained within case 92-s-1561. Take a closer look at the amended complaint. Your suggestion there is a cause for malpractice is unsupported, but acceptable to me; HOWEVER that cause of action rests entirely within case 92-C-1222, NOT case 92-s-1561, which is and always has been strictly a billing dispute.
Your suggestion that I have not met the requirements of section 2-622 is unsupported, case 92-s-1561, is a billing dispute case NOT a malpractice case.
I am personally surprised at your lack of knowledge regarding said amended complaint perhaps you have spent too much time fighting over the "letter of the law" RATHER than the "intent of the law". Read the material again, WITHIN the words written at the bottom: Democracy is a government by all the people FOR ALL THE PEOPLE. We live in a Democracy, do we not, which does mean LAWS that apply to one, apply to ALL! Sec 1154 (a) (11) as was sent to you is a subsection of Social Security Act, under title XVIII: health insurance for the aged and DISABLED.
Perhaps I should have included the portion of pleading in case 92-c-1222 regarding the disability I have incurred; page 5 subtitle (1) clarifies this disability (by your written words it is apparent; to you, case 92-s-1561 and 92-c-1222 are involved in these matters). IRREGARDLESS of how you view this claim; YOU have clearly stated my entitlement regarding this social security act XVIII within your medical file "physical examination" signed by P. Thopiah MD, read it again!
While it is true I do NOT collect any such benefits AND FURTHER: I DISAGREE entirely with the claim! YOU have made it possible for me to collect, at any time, with just my signature. THEREFORE I DO claim the RIGHTS, YOU SAY I HAVE and demand a review by an appropriate, peer review organization. I DO claim this right within the words page 530 sec 1155 [42 U.S.C. 1320c-4], as sent.
It is the defendant actions which has made legal action a reality NOT the plaintiff's actions. It is the defendants actions which have increased the cost of these legal actions. It is the defendants actions which have made it necessary to increase the time I have spent in court and out of court ONLY INTENT UPON JUSTICE. It is the defendants actions which have made case 92-c-1222 AND 92-s-1561 NECESSARY. I the plaintiff came looking only for monetary justice regarding a billing dispute BUT DO NOW claim my RIGHTS as defined by case 92-s-1561 and 92-c-1222 BECAUSE I do NOT want to endure these things, NOR do I wish anyone else to endure them.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that the case 92-s-1561 AND case 92-c-1222 AND the Peer Review (as demanded herein) be SPEEDILY commenced, as JUSTICE will allow.
James F. Osterbur
AMENDED CLAIMS 92-S-1561
The desire for a FAIR appraisal of services rendered.
THE ISSUES
WHY must I pay, when the payment and credit agreement, WHEN PROPERLY VIEWED, as signed by a person experiencing SERIOUS PHYSICAL DISTRESS, CAN NOT be considered a free enterprise decision.
There is NO determination to say NO BILL is due RATHER after a period of time and self healing it is NOW time to come to a reasonable decision REGARDING: HONEST MONEY OWED for services rendered! As I am NOW able to defend MY RIGHT!
There is a philosophy common to many which says "PAY the doctor, hospital, etc ANYTHING, what good is money if your dead."
I personally believe in FAIR AND EQUITABLE dealings in EVERY MATTER. Meaning honest work will be done at a FAIR wage. The description of serious physical pain is NOT a license to STEAL, yet will refuse to sign their papers when life, health, mobility, work, and so much more DEPENDS on reasonable HEALTH.
I have tried to discuss with the hospital on several occasions, with several different people the REALITY that I think this bill is unjust. EACH ONE clearly said "I" have no rights pay the bill on our terms, period.
TAKEN FROM ACTIVE ORDERS REGARDING MY CASE, as provided by Covenant Medical Center
Admitted 1:33PM time involved; approximately 10 minutes of time (1) person
Was helped to main emergency room at 3:12PM approx 10 min (1) person
Given injection 3:32 approx 5 minutes (were 4 nurses)
says given oxygen Fails to say was refused
Moved to hospital 8th floor
nursing assistance 2:25- 2:51 given pill
nursing assistance 10:33 PM time approx 15 minutes
Blood work 12:28 5:59 12:48 3:13
portable chest x-ray 1:00 5 minutes 1 person
To the Defendant: Covenant Medical Center
The deliberate and willful disregard for JUSTICE, within the confines of a FAIR and legal billing dispute: ARE the entire cause and legal action contained within case 92-s-1561. Take a closer look at the amended complaint. Your suggestion there is a cause for malpractice is unsupported, but acceptable to me; HOWEVER that cause of action rests entirely within case 92-C-1222, NOT case 92-s-1561, which is and always has been strictly a billing dispute.
Your suggestion that I have not met the requirements of section 2-622 is unsupported, case 92-s-1561, is a billing dispute case NOT a malpractice case.
I am personally surprised at your lack of knowledge regarding said amended complaint perhaps you have spent too much time fighting over the "letter of the law" RATHER than the "intent of the law". Read the material again, WITHIN the words written at the bottom: Democracy is a government by all the people FOR ALL THE PEOPLE. We live in a Democracy, do we not, which does mean LAWS that apply to one, apply to ALL! Sec 1154 (a) (11) as was sent to you is a subsection of Social Security Act, under title XVIII: health insurance for the aged and DISABLED.
Perhaps I should have included the portion of pleading in case 92-c-1222 regarding the disability I have incurred; page 5 subtitle (1) clarifies this disability (by your written words it is apparent; to you, case 92-s-1561 and 92-c-1222 are involved in these matters). IRREGARDLESS of how you view this claim; YOU have clearly stated my entitlement regarding this social security act XVIII within your medical file "physical examination" signed by P. Thopiah MD, read it again!
While it is true I do NOT collect any such benefits AND FURTHER: I DISAGREE entirely with the claim! YOU have made it possible for me to collect, at any time, with just my signature. THEREFORE I DO claim the RIGHTS, YOU SAY I HAVE and demand a review by an appropriate, peer review organization. I DO claim this right within the words page 530 sec 1155 [42 U.S.C. 1320c-4], as sent.
It is the defendant actions which has made legal action a reality NOT the plaintiff's actions. It is the defendants actions which have increased the cost of these legal actions. It is the defendants actions which have made it necessary to increase the time I have spent in court and out of court ONLY INTENT UPON JUSTICE. It is the defendants actions which have made case 92-c-1222 AND 92-s-1561 NECESSARY. I the plaintiff came looking only for monetary justice regarding a billing dispute BUT DO NOW claim my RIGHTS as defined by case 92-s-1561 and 92-c-1222 BECAUSE I do NOT want to endure these things, NOR do I wish anyone else to endure them.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays that the case 92-s-1561 AND case 92-c-1222 AND the Peer Review (as demanded herein) be SPEEDILY commenced, as JUSTICE will allow.
James F. Osterbur
THE ISSUES
The foundation of this nation as DECLARED in general congress assembled, july 4, 1776
".....but, when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such (government) and to provide new guards for their future security..........!"
The "government" written above is for/within this instance, exchanged with the words "medical establishment", which has become in this day not unlike the tyrant for which these words were written! This "medical establishment" has invaded this land, not with soldiers, but with a long train of abuses and arrogance, with only one goal in mind: To amass the largest fortune possible! In achieving this goal, the people have lost their RIGHT:
to REASONABLE ARBITRATION
to a legitimate trial as provided by the constitution, a trial where one may peacefully seek JUSTICE!
to a FAIR and fitting cost regarding services that were NEVER ASKED FOR, OR DESIRED, RATHER these services are the result of personal war against outside forces, REQUIRED FOR SURVIVAL.
to the PROTECTION of ourselves from those UNFIT for this service; by denying our right to a FULL and impartial PATIENT SURVEY available for public inspection at all times
to Define what is life among the living and what is not (these things are for everyone, they are NOT for legislatures or doctors)!
TO BE EQUAL: there is a limit to what anyone can HONESTLY charge for wages above and beyond the REST.
to RETAIN as a citizen LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness! Men/women/ and children have NEEDLESSLY LOST life, limb, and health AS WELL AS their homes, their work, and everything they worked for BECAUSE OF GREED!
to An honest wage for honest work, NOT FLAT RATES where 30 seconds is a charge for $50.00 or more
to Uncontrolled interest rates and payment schedules in area's where there was NO INTENT to ask (NEED) these services. (accidents, illnesses are NOT chosen).
to the FAIR appraisal of what is little more than a poor hotel room.
to Services rendered, NOT a charge for services NEVER received (IF a nurse attends to a patient, that to, should be an hourly rate, or ________________)
to The control of people who say "in effect" we want gold trim everywhere, when a simple building would do just as well.
to A business that should NEVER have been a business, HONEST CARE, PEOPLE, AND TRUE NEEDS require situations where MONEY IS NOT on everyones' mind. RATHER quality care at a cost everyone can afford (a percentage of income and/or community service if the community must pay).
to LAW that protects both sides from improper retribution.
to Realities that deal with, "mistakes will be made".
to Control the teaching institutions so that doctors MAY NEVER AGAIN, CONTROL THEIR OWN COMPETITION
to Control as well, the experimentation which_____________called genetic engineering.
to The right of citizenship: TO BE EQUAL, I have NO RIGHT according to the hospital, regarding billing
to Competition from competing suppliers of services or products.
to Determine as a NATION the proper conduct for a hospital and the penalty for improper conduct!
to Admission, without the papers which REEK OF EXTORTION!
Those who would say, "these things interfere with free enterprise, "FAIL THE SIMPLE TEST: SICKNESS OR ACCIDENT IS NOT A CHOICE!
Free enterprise is a situation where BOTH parties have the UNDENIABLE OPTION to enter and accept the business deal OR WALK AWAY UNHARMED!
Let it be further REMEMBERED: DOCTORS CONTROL THEIR COMPETITION, which makes free enterprise, IMPOSSIBLE! (control is based within college admissions, medical exams, and hospital acceptance) AND THE DELIBERATE fatiguing and control over new Interns, for the sole purpose of pressing them into compliance.
There are people from every walk of life who contribute to the healing of other people; those who make drugs and surgical instruments, those who make machines, those who transport products, grow food, supply fuel, provide clean areas, housing, etc. A doctor is simple the last worker on a very long line of people involved in health care.
To show the arrogance of the "medical profession" at large, you need only look at the symbol of "the american medical association AMA" (an association of many doctors) TAKE AN HONEST LOOK
We live and work together, for the benefit of all, OR we will DIE together, FOR WE ARE TOO MANY for any other way! IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
JAMES F. OSTERBUR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) NO. 92 S 1561
)
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER, )
)
Defendant. )
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss in the above-entitled cause before the Honorable Ann A. Einhorn, Judge presiding, on the 3rd day of December, 1992.
APPEARANCES:
MR. JAMES F. OSTERBUR
Appearing pro se
MR. DAVID KRCHAK
Attorney at Law
appearing for the Defendant
Doncy L. Tracy, CSR, RPR
Official Court Reporter
Champaign County Courthouse
Urbana, Illinois 61801
THE COURT: And I have 92 S 1561, which is James F. Osterbur versus Covenant Medical Center. And in this matter, Mr. Osterbur appears pro se. And Mr. Krchak appears on behalf of Covenant Medical Center.
This matter is called for hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
And, Mr. Osterbur, you've received a copy of that motion?
MR. OSTERBUR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Krchak, anything that you wish to add to your written motion?
MR. KRCHAK: Your Honor, there has been something filed or something has been sent to me by Mr. Osterbur --
(End of Side B of Tape
No. 1349, and beginning of
Side A of Tape No. 1350.)
THE COURT: -- which is Osterbur vs. Covenant Medical Center. Mr. Krchak on behalf of the defendant on his motion.
MR. KRCHAK: Yes, your Honor. In part, I feel that my Motion to Dismiss speaks for itself; and I don't have anything to add to that.
However, I do advise the Court that I have received some additional papers from
Mr. Osterbur. I don't know whether they've been included in the Court file or not. There is no proof of service with the papers. There's nothing to indicate that --
MR. OSTERBUR: May I?
MR. KRCHAK: There's nothing to indicate that they have been filed with the Court. I don't know the purpose of those papers. I don't understand the meaning of those papers.
What happened in this case was originally he had sued for an amount of money, but that was dismissed. He was given an opportunity to re-plead. Now he's alleging some portion of the Social Security Act, Federal Social Security Act, as a new and distinct cause of action against Covenant Medical Center. And I'm just at a total loss to understand what the additional writings that he has apparently filed in this case have to do whatsoever with this case.
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, let me just note for the record that these are the filings that I have. I have filed on December 1st a copy of certain notices or a notice of mailing to Thomas, Mamer and Haughey, and that written notice is apparently in your handwriting. I have also filed with that xerox copies of a number of handwritten sheets without caption, as well as a number of typed sheets which I take to be the Amended Complaint, as well as a xerox copy of a part of the -- I believe, the U.S. Code, 42 U.S. Code, Section 1155 of the Social Security Act.
Okay. Mr. Osterbur, anything that you wish to say on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss?
MR. OSTERBUR: Well, this whole matter has come about a legal dispute more than anything else (inaudible). I received rejection by a doctor that was (inaudible). I might have went to the emergency room. The doctor came in and thoroughly rejected me and actually slandered me in front of my own dad. I was given drugs that I specifically said I don't want. I was not treated well. I was in my opinion used and abused and rejected and so on. And that is the cause of what has came from the -- the -- I lost my train of thought for just a minute.
From that point, after I began to feel a little bit better, I began to present a bill for a full amount as if I was treated as well as anyone might expect to be treated. I was not treated that well, and I sought to come to a point where I could have a hearing of sorts with the hospital simply to explain to management or upper management that I was treated badly and therefore and specifically I was given drugs that I should not have been given, I thoroughly rejected, and I was given them and in fact was left alone in the emergency room. People came in and gave me shots and what have you, and all of a sudden then it turned out to a machine malfunction. I was not treated well.
And in my efforts to get to a point where the hospital would hear me at all, I've written several letters over the past, over that period of time, which I will be happy to give you if that's acceptable. And all of them stating the same thing, that I was treated badly and that I want to be heard, that I want to have an adjustment in this billing arrangement. And I talked to -- at the hospital I talked to the sister, a nun, originally that was supposed to help me. She said that she would look into the matter. She did, and came back and said that we've over billed you $70. And she did not look, she did not hear my complaints at all. She just said she would look into the matter. That took about 30 seconds to do with me, and I was supposed to be happy with the $70 coming back or being off the bill. I made it clear to her that was not really the issue, that I wanted to talk to someone about what I think is fair in this billing matter; and she utterly refused and walked away immediately.
I talked to two or three different billing people, and all of them have said, with no regard for me whatsoever, that the bill is due, just pay it. That's it.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Osterbur, at this point, let me explain procedurally where we are. You have brought this complaint against Covenant Medical Center. They are not suing you for collection of any bill. You are suing them, and you are suing them in the context of the Small Claims Court in which you must establish a complaint, a cause of action.
Now, when you were in court previously in October, I dismissed your first petition and I gave you leave to re-file that petition so as to state a cause of action. And in Small Claims Court, the Court in enjoined to construe the pleadings, especially the pleadings of pro se defendants as broadly as possibly, understanding that you are representing yourself and without benefit of counsel.
However, Mr. Osterbur, I have read the pages that have been submitted to the Court and have tried to construe them as best I can as a complaint, and --
MR. OSTERBUR: May I for just a second?
THE COURT: Well, I'll let you continue for just a moment before I give the dismissal.
MR. OSTERBUR: I was -- I was -- I gave you the articles in Social Security, that I feel that I fall within the Social Security Act, that being due. And because of the -- because of the doctor's orders, they allege that gives me cause to be a beneficiary under the act, which is Social Security disabled act. I feel that as a beneficiary under this act, I'm entitled to a cause or a peer review, organizational meeting or whatever they do under that act and do ask for that.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Osterbur, what the Court was about to explain to you is that much of what you have alleged in the papers perhaps might be construed in the context of a medical malpractice; but it does not amount to a small claims court case. It does not amount to a complaint which states a cause of action by you against the hospital.
MR. OSTERBUR: I feel it was the hospital's duty to inform me that there was a possibility for this type of action that I specifically asked for many times at the hospital. Why is it that they cannot simply say to me that this is what I was asking for.
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, if you have a complaint as to the nature of the treatment, or --
MR. OSTERBUR: Well, I --
THE COURT: I'm not asking this as a question. I'm making a statement, Mr. Osterbur.
If that's your complaint, then you may want to look into it and research out to bring a different complaint.
You may have, the Court has no way of knowing, you may have a complaint within the context of a malpractice suit. If so, the statutes tell you how to go about doing that and what you must establish to bring such a complaint; but I am making a ruling in this case that you have not in your Amended Complaint established the cause of action, and I am going to allow the defendant's Motion to Dismiss this cause with prejudice.
MR. OSTERBUR: The reason that it was brought to take me to -- (inaudible), they were intending to take me to -- handing it over to creditors for that type of thing; and to eliminate that becoming a reality or a part of what I am dealing with, I felt it was necessary to simply make that, come forth and get the thing over with in this matter.
THE COURT: Well, the allegations that you have raised in your Amended Complaint as well as in the original complaint all go to the nature of the treatment, and this is not the forum for deciding that complaint. Therefore, I am going to dismiss it with prejudice at this time.
MR. KRCHAK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Osterbur.
(Which were all the
proceedings had in this
cause on this date.)
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF CHAMPAIGN )
I, Doncy Tracy, an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of Champaign County, Sixth Judicial Circuit of Illinois, do hereby certify that I transcribed the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause from a taped recording into typewriting, which I hereby certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings had before the Honorable Ann A. Einhorn, Judge presiding.
Dated this day of , 1993.
__________________________
Doncy L. Tracy, CSR, RPR
License No. 084-002830
Official Court Reporter
ITEM #94
Retyped for electronic transfer space
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, IL
JAMES F. OSTERBUR
PLAINTIFF
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
CASE 92-S-1561
MOTION TO DISMISS
Now comes the defendant, covenant medical center, by its attorneys, Thomas Mamer, & Haughey, and hereby moves to dismiss the amended complaint filed in this action and in support of said motion, states as follows:
1. The amended complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief or damages can be provided. The plaintiff cites a section of the federal social securities act but does not provide any facts establishing that this act somehow relates to a claim against covenant medical center.
2. The complaint does not contain any information advising the defendant why it is claimed it is indebted to Mr. Osterbur in the sum of $956.00
3. The original complaint in this matter was dismissed and the plaintiff was given an additional opportunity to amend his complaint in conformance with law.
WHEREFORE the defendant covenant medical center, prays that the complaint filed in this matter be dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 of the Il code of civil procedure Ill revised statutes chapter 110, paragraph 2-615 , as being insufficient to state a cause of action and for costs.
As an additional motion to dismiss, the defendant, covenant medical center states:
1. The complaint attempts to allege a healing art malpractice cause of action against the defendant medical center.
2. The plaintiff has not followed the requirements of section 2-622 of the IL code of civil procedure ( Ill revised statutes chapter 110 paragraph 2-622) in that the plaintiff has not filed an affidavit establishing the cause of action.
3. In accordance with section 2-622 (g), the defendant is entitled to a dismissal under section 2-619 of the code of civil procedure (IL revised statutes chapter 110 paragraph 2-619.
WHEREFORE, the defendant covenant medical center, prays that the amended complaint filed in this matter be dismissed with prejudice and for costs.
Covenant medical center
By David E. Krchak
retyped for electronic transfer space
Exhibit F Covenant medical center
James F. Osterbur
RE: James F. Osterbur
account HC 026945
admission service date 07/21/90
balance $969.26
Despite previous requests, the above described account remains unpaid:
Your account is now approaching default:
it was our hope that you would pay this bill without the need for professional collection and due process. Unfortunately, as you have not made payment in full, we have prepared your file for these actions.
It is our sincere hope we can work together to resolve this matter and we must hear from you immediately; Failure to respond to this letter will leave me with no alternative but to refer your account to our collection agency.
Sincerely DOOOI
Financial counselor
ITEM #95 CIRCUIT COURT 92-2991
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
JOHNNA S. COLE, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) No. 92 S 2991 JIM OSTERBUR, )
Defendant. )
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the Bench Trial had in the above-entitled cause before the Honorable Harry E. Clem, Judge presiding, on the 14th day of April, 1993.
APPEARANCES:
MS. JOHNNA S. COLE
Appearing pro se
MR. JAMES F. OSTERBUR
Appearing pro se
THE COURT: 92 S 2991, Johnna Cole versus Jim Osterbur. Plaintiff appears. That's you, ma'am, correct? Defendant appears.
And you are?
MR. ADAIR: I'm her boyfriend.
MS. COLE: He was subpoenaed.
MR. ADAIR: Yes, I was subpoenaed by that man right there.
THE COURT: All right. Then you will need to wait back there, sir.
MR. ADAIR: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: Cause called for bench trial. Miss Cole, you're going to testify?
MS. COLE: I can, yeah.
THE COURT: Ma'am, it's your claim and your opportunity to present evidence in support of it. I don't know what you intended to present to the Court today.
MS. COLE: Okay. Yeah, I will.
THE COURT: Stand and raise your right hand.
(Witness sworn.)
JOHNNA COLE,
the plaintiff herein, having first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Could you state your name and address, ma'am.
A. My name is Johnna Cole, 2608 Brownfield Road, No. 4, Urbana, Illinois.
Q. And you are the plaintiff, that is the person bringing this lawsuit, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're suing Mr. Osterbur, the gentleman seated down here at the table; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say that he owes you $1200?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you tell me why you believe that's the case?
A. He sold me a vehicle that was advertised with a new motor, a new transmission; and it lasted about 2 months, the car. And I had called him and told him, and he said he would come and fix it; and he fixed it. And it ran for probably 2 to 3 months, and it just broke down again and hasn't run since.
Q. Well, let's back up. First of all, you say that this was advertised. Was there some sort of advertisement in the newspaper?
A. Yes.
Q. Or some kind of hand bill or something?
A. I have the ad.
Q. May I see it, please.
A. It's circled.
Q. Yes, ma'am. I was trying to see what publication it was.
And we are, I gather, talking about the 1982 Buick Skylark that's mentioned in this advertisement; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw the advertisement and apparently were interested in purchasing the vehicle. I gather you called the telephone number that's listed here in the ad?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's how you first became acquainted with Mr. Osterbur?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you actually
make the agreement with
him to purchase this particular vehicle?
A. It was in March. I
don't remember what day, exact day.
Q. March of last year?
A. '91.
Q. Last year was '92,
ma'am. You're saying March of '91.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Where did you make the agreement with him to purchase the vehicle?
A. At his home in Royal or Ogden.
Q. On that occasion what did you say to him, and what did he say to you?
A. He told me that it was -- there was a new motor, new transmission and the motor should run for another hundred thousand miles.
(End of side A of Tape No. 600 and beginning of Side B.)
Q. Anything else that he said?
A. Not that I can remember.
Q. Did you drive the automobile?
A. I did not drive it until April. I purchased it in March and didn't drive it until April.
Q. Where was it between March and April?
A. Sitting in front of my house.
Q. How did it get from Mr. Osterbur's house to your house?
A. My friend drove it.
Q. At the time that you had this conversation with Mr. Osterbur at his house in March, was the vehicle there?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. The vehicle, I asked you was the car there when
you talked to him about it in March at his house?
A. Yes, it was, at his house.
Q. Okay. And you didn't ask to drive it?
A. Yeah, I drove it.
Q. Okay. You say that approximately 2 months after you bought the vehicle problems developed with the vehicle. What sort of problems?
A. I guess the heads went dead or something, the head gasket.
Q. Ma'am, do you know anything about fixing cars?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Tell me what the car did, not what somebody told you was wrong with it.
A. It just would not run.
Q. In what fashion, It wouldn't start? The engine wouldn't propel the car once it was started? What
exactly were the symptoms that you noticed in regard to whatever was wrong with the car?
A. I would start, but it wouldn't move.
Q. Okay. You called the problem, I gather, to Mr. Osterbur's attention?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. By telephone?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say, and what did he say?
A. I just told him the car wasn't running, and he offered to come down and look at it.
Q. Which he subsequently did?
A. Yes.
Q. That was at your place?
A. Yeah, at my place.
Q. What did he say to you on that occasion, and what if anything did you say to him?
A. He told me what was wrong with it, and he said he'd fix it.
Q. What did he say was wrong?
A. The head gasket was bad. I think that was all.
Q. And he said he would repair the problem?
A. Right, yes.
Q. Did he take the vehicle from your place to somewhere to do that?
A. No. He took it apart in the driveway and took the parts wherever they needed to be fixed at. I gave him money to go get the parts for what it needed, and he brought it back and put it together.
Q. How did the car operate after that?
A. It ran pretty well for another couple months, and then the same thing happened.
Q. When you say the same thing happened, it would start but the vehicle wouldn't go?
A. Yes.
Q. Wouldn't go. Okay.
A. At the time that he
was at the house when he fixed the car, he gave me $300 of my money back; and
he said that he agreed that it was going to need a new motor, and he would pay
for half.
Q. That apparently would have been, when he fixed the car, would have been in either May or June; right?
A. It was in -- I think it was the 11th of July when he fixed it.
Q. Okay. And now we're talking about a problem that developed in September or thereabouts, right?
A. Right.
Q. When that problem developed, what did you do?
A. I didn't really do anything, in fact, for a while because I didn't know what I was going to do with it. I called and told him it was broke down again, and
he offered to fix it; and I told him, no, I don't want him to come and fix it. And I just decided to take him to small claims court because it was advertised for a new motor and new transmission and both of those are out, neither one of them work.
Q. Well, excuse me ma'am. Apparently I misunderstood what you said because I understood you to say that the motor ran but the car wouldn't go forward.
A. It did not stay --
Q. Are you now telling me that the motor won't run?
A. When you put it gear, it just died. it would not go anywhere. The car wouldn't move.
Then when he fixed it, then it was driveable for a little while and then it broke down again. During that time when it was driveable, the transmission was going out.
Q. Okay. I neglected to ask you. How much did you
pay for the car in the first place?
A. $1500.
Q. And that's what you feel you should get back because the car didn't do what it was supposed to do?
A. I was claiming $1200 He already gave me $300 back.
Q. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. You're claiming $1200 because you paid him 1500 and he gave you 300 back?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything else you wanted to say about your claim that you haven't had an opportunity to say already?
A. I had an estimate done at Worden-Martin's on the motor and how much and what everything was wrong with it.
Q. Is there someone from Worden-Martin who is here who is going to testify?
A. No, but I brought a written estimate.
Q. Ma'am, if you had read the material that you were advised to read the first day you were in court, you would have discovered that that's called hearsay evidence. Evidence in court has to be presented by somebody who is here to testify because to do otherwise violates the other party's right of cross-examination. Mr. Osterbur can't asked questions of the paper that you brought. We need the person who made the paper here.
Is there anything else you wanted to say about your claim?
A. No.
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, do you have questions that you want to ask?
MR. OSTERBUR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. OSTERBUR: Should I stand u, or stay seated?
THE COURT: You may be seated.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. My recollection is a little bit different from yours.
THE COURT: The statement of the defendant is ordered stricken.
Ask questions, sir. That's where we're at.
MR. OSTERBUR: Pardon me.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. When you were out at my house to buy the car, did you ever feel any pressure to buy the car?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you but it the first day you were there?
A. No, it was the second day.
Q. Were you satisfied with the way it ran at the time that you bought it?
A. It ran fine at the time that I bought it, yes.
Q. Do you recall that I -- we actually bought the car for $1575 originally; and in checking the car out to make sure it was in good running order for you, I discovered that one tire had a small problem and I reimbursed you or charged you $75 less for the car at that time; do you recall that?
A. Yeah, I remember that.
Q. As I recall it, you drove it off the property. Do you recall that?
A. Yeah, I drove it halfway, and then I changed vehicles.
Q. Either way, you did drive it?
A. Off the property, yes. But I didn't drive it home.
Q. All right. When you first called me at about 4 months after you had purchased the car, you said that car
didn't work properly, something was wrong with it; and I came out and looked at it, is that correct?
A. That's correct?
Q. And do you remember what happened then?
A. You fixed the car.
Q. Not at that time.
THE COURT: This testimony of the defendant is ordered stricken.
If you don't like her answer, sir, testify in opposition to it when it's your turn.
MR. OSTERBUR: Okay.
THE COURT: You're not allowed to argue with her in court.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Did the car that you had, when you were driving the car, did the car ever overheat?
A. It overheated one
time.
Q. Do you recall where
you were at when it overheated?
A. In Morton, Illinois.
Q. Do you recall at
about what time or how many months you had had the car before it overheated?
A. Two months.
Q. Can you tell me how
hot it got? Was there steam coming out from under the hood?
A. No, just a hot, the
water light or whatever came on.
Q. How far away from you
-- after you discovered it was overheated, how far did you drive it?
A. Probably about 15
miles.
Q. And what happened
when you got to your destination?
A. It just steamed.
Q. Was it repaired by
anyone there?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. What did they say was
wrong with it?
A. It was not repaired
that day. It was repaired the next day, which was on a Sunday when there was no
auto part store open at this particular time, so we couldn't get a hose for it.
So, the hose was cut down about half and inch to make it fit because we
couldn't get a part for it so I could get to work.
Q. But after the hose
was cut off and re-positioned in place, did the motor run?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the car problems
result after this overheating?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think there's any possibility that they might be connected?
A. I don't think so. The car, the crank shaft is
bad. It's got a thrown rod. Everything is wrong with it.
Q. When you called the second
time and I came out to look at the car, do you have -- you showed me a long list
from a garage of things that were wrong with it. Do you still have that list?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I's like to see the
list. The list said that the motor was bad, everything was wrong with it; does
that about sum it up?
A. Just about.
Q. After that, I
repaired the car $50 by installing the head gasket; is that correct?
A. Uh-huh, yes.
Q. I did it in your
presence, is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. I took the head off
and showed you that the
cylinder walls were clean and smooth and there was no ridge at the top;
is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did I tell you at the time that a newly bored engine has a smooth cylinder wall and has no ring at the top?
A. I don't remember. I don't know anything about a car.
Q. All right. Do you recall that you said the motor rant well after the car was then fine after it was fixed for $50. Well, do you recall that I asked you why the cruise control was disconnected?
A. The cruise control was never connected. When I test drove that car, it did not work. Neither did the air conditioner. I took the air conditioner to have freon put in it, and the guy said it's not even hooked up. Neither one of those items were hooked up because I
had to take it somewhere and have it d one.
Q. Can you tell me -- back when I gave you the $300, can you tell me what you remember about that?
A. You said that you though it would need a new motor and you would go half on it and you had gotten the price from Auto Zone of $800 or something.
Q. Do you remember why I was willing to give you any money, or did I explain that at all?
A. Well, I don't know. I don't know if it was guilt. I don't know. Why did you?
Q. Can you tell me whether or not your boyfriend, Mr. Adair, was upset on that day?
A. Because I had replaced a
lot of things on it, small things; and then it breaking down, it was my only
vehicle. I couldn't get my child to and from day care, couldn't get to work; and
he was upset because I had spent all my money on the car.
Q. How upset was he?
A. He was upset.
Q. Really upset?
A. Well, how --
THE COURT: Is there some point to this, Mr. Osterbur?
MR. OSTERBUR: Yes, there is.
THE COURT: Then get to it.
MR. OSTERBUR: The person over there, well, I'll let -- should I give my defense now, or may I close?
THE COURT: No. Ask her questions. And if there's something about this incident that involves Mr. Adair that you think is pertinent, you may bring it out; but the line of questioning that you were pursuing was not designed to do that anytime in the near future. Get to the point.
MR. OSTERBUR: It might not sound like a question.
MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Was your boyfriend ever about to hit me, do you suppose?
A. No, I don't think so. He was mad and he was upset, but I never seen him raise a hand to strike you.
I asked him politely twice to go in the house, that I would take care of it; and finally he turned around and he went in the house.
Q. When I fixed your motor, did I ask you anything in particular in return for fixing the motor?
A. Not that I know of, no.
Q. Did I ask you that Mr. Adair not be present during the entire time that I fixed the motor, is that correct?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. Was he there?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Did he show up for lunch?
A. He showed up for lunch, yes, but he was not aware that you were there.
THE COURT: What does this have to do with the condition of the vehicle, Mr. Osterbur, since you have no counterclaim on file for assault or anything else that would seen to relate to what it is that you're trying to bring out?
MR. OSTERBUR: The entire matter could have been resolved in a much more satisfactory manner.
THE COURT: Perhaps it could, but that's what we're here to do today.
MR. OSTERBUR: Mr. Adair, when I came first to look at the car, he wanted all his money back immediately, without fixing it or anything, or any such matter; and part of this goes to the question of he was telling me that he had a gun, he owned a gun and it was under the
seat of his --
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: Just a moment, ma'am.
You won't testify. And unless you want to suggest something to me, you haven't yet, Mr. Osterbur, this doesn't have anything to do with the mechanical condition of this car and whether statements that were not true were made at the time that you sold the car.
Now, if you want to suggest something in regard to Mr. Adair and this transaction that related to one of those things, I'll hear it; but whatever else went on outside of court, any discussion, proper or improper about settling the case, unless you are contending that some settlement agreement was actually reached, in which case I'll hear that evidence, has nothing to do with the things that are before the Court.
MR. OSTERBUR: I'll try and do better.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. When I gave you $300, what did I tell you?
A. I answered that.
Q. You told me that it was for half the motor --
A. Right.
Q. -- roughly of the lower block and plus a hundred dollars or so for the installation of that motor?
A. Who would do it for a hundred dollars?
Q. Is that what I told you?
A. Not that I'm aware of, no. You just told me for a small block, $300, and that would cover half of it.
Q. And you accepted that
money?
A. Exactly. But the parts that I paid for for the car at the time that you fixed it were used from basically that money.
Q. The $50 that you paid later on came from that
$300?
A. Well, basically, yeah. If you gave me 300 and then I gave you 50 to pay for the car, then that's more or less.
Q. Then that was 3 weeks or so later, wasn't it?
A. No, it was the same day.
Q. I appeared at your house twice, is that correct?
A. One day you came looked at the car, the next day you came and fixed the car. The day you fixed the car is the day that you gave me the check.
Q. I recall giving you the check earlier.
THE COURT: This testimony of the defendant is ordered stricken.
MR. OSTERBUR: I guess that's enough questions.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Well, let me ask you, how is it that the motor and the transmission all quit at once?
A. It didn't all quit at once. I said when the car, after you fixed it nd it was running, the transmission started going out. And it was going down the road one day, it started smoking and it started knocking, and that was it. I got it to the driveway, and that's where it sat. It hasn't started, ran or anything since.
Q. What made you think that the transmission was going out?
A. Well, because when you put it in drive and it didn't go anywhere, you put it in reverse and it didn't go anywhere, that's probably the transmission. I had an estimate done on that, too, and they said it was out.
MR. OSTERBUR: All right. I guess that's enough from me.
THE COURT: Do you have anything else you want to claim, Ms. Cole?
MS. COLE: No, I don't.
THE COURT: You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Do you have other testimony that's here today available for presentation that you were going to present, ma'am?
MS. COLE: Just a witness of what was wrong with the car or something?
THE COURT: I'm asking you if there's any other person who's here today that you were intending to call as a witness?
MS. COLE: Yes, Richard Adair.
THE COURT: Mr. Adair, would you come and stand before the bench and raise you right hand, please.
(Witness sworn.)
RICHARD ADAIR,
called as a witness by the Plaintiff herein, having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Would you state you name and address.
A. Richard Adair. I live at 2608 Brownfield Road,
Trailer No. 4, Urbana, Illinois.
Q. Mr. Adair, starting wherever you first became involved in this particular transaction, would you tell me what you know of your own knowledge; that is, what you witnessed or what went on in your presence.
A. Well, we went out and took a ride in the car after she started having problems with it, and he was starting to tell me all this stuff he's put into it motor-wise, expense, transmissions.
Q. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I need to know when things happened; and when you move to the next thing, I need to know when that happened.
I gather from what you just said that sometime after she bought the car in March there were some problems, and she had you ride in the car with her --
A. Right.
Q. -- to know what those problems were?
A. Right.
Q. When was that?
A. As far as dates, she'd know more than I would as far as dates.
Q. Well, as best you can remember, when was it?
A. Well, what? We bought the car in March?
Q. No, she can't help you.
A. Okay.
Q. You tell me what you remember.
A. Well, I would say probably a month after she bought the car. I mean, I can't remember that far back. I'm sorry.
Q. Just minute. All we need, Mr. Adair, is for everybody to do the best they can.
A. Right. I understand.
Q. But I have to know the sequence of things because sometimes the timing of things--
A. Right.
Q. -- is important.
A. I understand.
Q. A month or so after she bought the car --
A. Right.
Q. -- she had you take a ride with her, and what was the card doing at that time?
A. It was like losing power. It just seemed like it never was fully running right. It would lose power and then it would gain power, and then one day it run fine and the next day it wouldn't run very good at all.
Q. I gather that you said then that Mr. Osterbur
told you some things about the condition of the car. This was after this ride to observe why it wasn't working right?
A. This was about the time that he some down and wanted to go for a ride in it, and I had a few things I wanted to tell him abut the motor and the brakes and a few things.
Q. So, after you rode in the car with Ms. Cole, Mr. Osterbur was contacted and he came to Ms. Cole's house?
A. That's right. That's correct?
Q. And now we're talking about that incident?
A. Right. That's correct.
Q. Why don't you tell me what Mr. Osterbur said on that occasion and what, if anything, you told him about the car?
A. Well, I had told him that the brakes seemed like they weren't in very good shape. You'd hit the brakes
and they would just kind of seize, like. I mean, they were -- the master cylinder would just kind of jerk. You know, when you come to a stop, it was like the car wouldn't stop suddenly, it would just kind of slowly stop. And I told him the brakes weren't in very good shape. I said we had had an estimate from the garage on the brakes and they were needing to be replaced.
And I think we kind of got into a heated argument that day because I said, you know, you ad said new brakes, and I said the motor has been kind of acting funny, and I said it was supposed to have been new and so is the transmission. And he had first said that he had a cousin or somebody that had hone al the work. And I asked for his cousin's name to get a hold of him so I could talk to him about the car. Well, he acted like I didn't need to know this or for some reason he wasn't wanting to give me the information. So, that was
basically it.
And it remember coming back to the house and him jacking the car up looking at the brakes, saying that we could go down to Farm and Fleet and get the pads. And I'm saying, well, you know, why should she have to do this when everything in the paper said new. I said, that's why she bought the car from the beginning, thinking the car was in good shape.
And it kind of went from there. I felt like I wasn't getting very far with him; and I just said, "Why don't you be a nice guy and give her her money back?"
Q. Go ahead.
A. And so that was about
it. And as far as me having a gun or --
Q. Well --
A. -- I don't even own one.
Q. Just a minute. I've
already told him, the
byplay that went on outside of court I'm not interested in.
A. Okay.
Q. That's something that is something for another day in another court.
A. All right.
Q. But what I do need to know is, okay, that's what you told him about the car and that's what he told you on this occasion that he came down to look at it.
A. Right.
Q. Okay. Were you involved in this particular transaction after that?
A. Well, whenever she'd bring it to my attention or, you know, as far as taking it to the garage, I was involved there of having the garage report done one the motor after we got it the second time it went bad.
Q. Okay. After Mr. Osterbur performed the repairs
that he performed on the occasion that you and he had this conversation that you just described --
A. Uh-huh, right, right.
Q. -- Ms. Cole, I gather, told you that the car still was not working right and you had occasion to verify that that's the fact; right?
A. Well, just from -- I mean, I've done some mechanical stuff. I never tore into it or anything, but I could tell there was something wrong with the motor.
Q. What was the car doing after he fixed it that you though maybe something was amiss?
A. Well, after he pulled -- it was acting up before he fixed it. And then after he fixed, it ran good for maybe a month, maybe a good month or two, but the transmission was starting to slip and the brakes were never really --
Q. What was the car doing that led you to believe
that the transmission was slipping? What do you mean by that?
A. Well, you's put it in drive and -- I mean, I don't know if you've ever had a car do this -- but you put it in drive and you take off. I had to take off slowly. If I got in it and I wanted to take off down the road, it wouldn't do nothing but sit there and look at me. But now, if I put it in drive and slowly take off, it would work fine. But if I wanted to just take off very fast, it wouldn't do it.
I drove it like that for maybe a month or so after he fixed it, or tow. And then finally the motor, I don't know maybe 3 or 4 months after that, it just finally gave up again.
Q. When you say gave up again, what do you mean by that?
A. I brought it home and it died on me one day on
my lunch hour at work and I had to leave it parked down at the bank. And I finally got it to go again, and I drove it home; and just about before I got home, it started acting crazy. It wouldn't hardly pull itself. It was dinging and everything else. It just didn't want to run. And so it sat out in front of the trailer for probably a year. It just didn't want to run right.
So, then I had a tow truck come out and get it -- well, it was about a year after that -- and had them tow it down and I had a written estimate done down at Worden-Martin's. I said if I need this in court I want to know. And he would have willingly testified, you know.
Q. Well, just a minute. We'll get to that momentarily.
Is that the last thing that you had to do with the condition of the car was you arranged to have it
towed in?
A. Right. I wanted to get a garage report saying what was wrong with it so that when I went to court, you know, I could use this if you wanted to see it showing from a garage, not a gas station, but a garage what was wrong with it.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Cole, Mr. Osterbur, this matter was set for a half an hour because it's difficult for us to know when things are set how long they are going to take; and it's obvious to me that it's going to take at least twice as long, perhaps longer to get this concluded. And we have other people who are waiting for the Court's time, so I'm not going to have any alternative except to recess the proceedings and hear the rest of this on another day.
Are the two of you available at 3:30 on April 21st? That would be the next time I have available that we could do this again.
MS. COLE: Yes.
MR. OSTERBUR: I can make it.
THE COURT: Okay. You may step down, Mr. Adair.
MR. ADAIR: Can I say one more thing? I mean just for a minute, sir, you Honor?
THE COURT: Why don't you -- we'll go ahead and hear you out on what's called direct examination, if there's something else you want to say; and then he's going to have a right to ask you questions when this is reconvened. So, you're going to need to come back.
But why don't you tell me so you don't forget to tell me later. Why don't you tell me what's on you mind now.
MR. ADAIR: Well, I was wondering if I go ahead and get the mechanic from Worden-Martin's and have him brought to court, would that be all right with you?
THE COURT: Well, that's something that I'll talk
about. If that's what you want to tell me --
MR. ADAIR: I mean, the next time we come in, I was going to go ahead and have him come because he said he would.
THE COURT: Fine. Why don't you step down.
MR. ADAIR: Okay.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: The docket entry is: Evidence heard on behalf of the plaintiff. Hearing recessed to be reconvened for conclusion of bench trial 3:30 p.m. on April 21, 1993, Courtroom F.
Because both sides of this are representing themselves without the services of an attorney, let me say this for the benefit of both of you so that we can conclude this next time you come back to court. If there was any misunderstanding about it before, let me make it perfectly clear that anybody who is to be heard in court
has to be present physically to give testimony and be questioned by the other side as you were when he asked you questions and as you're going to have a right to do if he takes the stand to testify as part of his part. That's some of the rules that we follow here, and it's only fair to one side or the other.
A piece of paper is something that somebody discussed, for example, with you, ma'am, but they didn't discuss it with him and he has a right to ask questions about it and make sure that what's on it is accurate. And the same thing would be true of anything he wants to present.
So, you have not rested, that is concluded your case yet, ma'am, so anybody you want me to hear from has got to be here and ready to go on the 21st. And if for some reason that person can't be here, you're going to have to make a request to have the trial date changed,
and it has to be done before the 21st.
Same thing with you, Mr. Osterbur. I don't know if you were intending to present anybody other than yourself; but if you are, they have to be here and ready to do on the 21st or you're going to have to request that the hearing date be changed. And whatever is here and ready to go on the 21st, unless the date has been changed in the meantime, is what we're going to decide the case on.
Hearing is declared to be in recess.
Ma'am, since this has been marked as an exhibit, we're putting it in the file and it will be here if you need to make reference to it late on.
(Which were all the proceedings
had in this cause on this date.)
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
JOHNNA S. COLE )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) No. 92 S 2991
JIM OSTERBUR )
Defendant. )
CONTINUED REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the Bench Trial had in the above-entitled cause before the Honorable Harry E. Clem, Judge presiding, on the 21st day of April, 1993.
APPEARANCES:
MS. JOHNNA S. COLE
appearing pro se
MR. JAMES F. OSTERBUR
appearing pro se
THE COURT: This is 92 S 2991. Plaintiff appears. Defendant appears. Bench trial is resumed.
Mr. Osterbur, as I recall, towards the end of the proceedings Mr. Adair had been giving some testimony and you were asking some questions. Did you finish with what you wanted to ask him, or did you have other things you needed to inquire about?
MR. OSTERBUR: I had other things I needed to inquire about.
THE COURT: Mr. Adair, would you take the stand again. You're still under oath since you were sworn last time.
MR. ADAIR: Okay.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
RICHARD ADAIR,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Back when -- well, let me start. Did you come out and look at the car with you girlfriend?
A. Couple times, yeah.
Q. When it was out at the farm before you purchased it?
A. No, I never did.
Q. Why not?
A. She purchased it and she said she wanted it. She went and got it and I was working or something and I didn't come out and look at it.
Q. What happened when -- (inaudible)?
A. Well, when I saw it when she first got it, I thought she had paid too much for it, my personal opinion on it. And that's what I told her. I said, "I think you
paid a little too much for the car."
Q. Didn't you tell me when I -- Did you provide any maintenance to the car?
A. She had got it hot one day and brought it out to my mom's on a weekend. It was on a Saturday, and her hose was leaking, a bottom hose. And I cut it down a little bit and fixed it so it wouldn't leak anymore, and that was about all I ever did to it that I can remember of.
Q. Back when you were driving the car when it died for the last time and you said that the car was running reasonably well and that just before you got home it started smoking and clanking and --
A. Well, it started doing it that afternoon and I had left it up here at the bank because it started running bad and I couldn't even keep it running. So, I shut it off and left it there and went on and walked to
work. Went back after work and got it, and she followed me on home. And it wasn't running -- it was just starting to clang. It wasn't really getting too hot until we got in the drive and it started kind of smoking.
But I had only just used it for about a half hour to and hour and it started making that noise, and I brought it down here to the bank and parked it because it just wouldn't run all the way in to work. So, I just left it there and I say it started to screw up again, and that's when she started knowing that the motor was getting bad again.
Q. Back when you were originally had problems with it, your girlfriend, Ms. Cole or Miss Cole, told me on a number of times that when she had first called me that --
A. It would lose power on us a lot.
Q. She had told me that you absolutely didn't want her to call me, wanted her to take me to court. Why was
that?
A. Because I felt like you were just kind of pushing us around. I mean, I felt like you wanted to say it had everything new in it --
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur?
THE WITNESS: And I just felt like --
THE COURT: Just a minute, Mr. Adair.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: What he thinks about anything is not pertinent. Discussions you had with him about whether this case should go to court or not are not pertinent.
The issue is: Was there something wrong with the car and whether there was some warranty given by you that was breached, and so get on with something else other than the line of questioning that you're pursuing.
I believe I told you last time that exchanges between you ant this witness other than as they related
directly to the condition of the car were not relevant and they're not relevant today, either.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Did you tell me when I came out the first time, did you tell me what had happened to the car to get it in this condition? Did you have any idea what happened to the car?
A. I had no idea. You mean when you first pulled it apart?
Q. When I first appeared after Johnna had called me.
A. If I remember right, I just said it was losing power. It wasn't running right. It would barely pull. I know there was a few times it had to sit in the drive because we couldn't even drive it. It would not even pull itself. You'd start it, and it just didn't have any power. It wouldn't even run.
I remember right when she had to have you take it apart, it just wouldn't run.
Q. Can you tell me why it
took so long it you -- the car didn't run for 6 months, why did it take 18
months beyond the time that the car was purchased to subpoena me to court?
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur,
what did I just tell you not more than two minutes ago?
MR. OSTERBUR: It seems
to me a pertinent question.
THE COURT: It is not, and don't ask another on like it.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Did you ever check the fluid in the transmission when you were having problems with it?
A. It was fine.
Q. I checked the oil in the motor when it was starting to go bad, and it was fine.
As a matter of fact, the car, I even got it started after it sat for a while in front of the house the second time it went bad. I had Dee Russo some down and get it and I had him bring a battery and it started, but it was just knocking. It actually would run, bur it was just beating itself to death. And he told before I even spent any money having it taken apart, he said, "I think you've got a rod out of it." So, I felt like to prove it to you that the motor was bad --
THE COURT: Mr. Adair, i'm ignoring everything you said after you said that you checked the fluid level that he asked you about. Listen to what he asks and answer the question he asks and don't ramble on, please.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Osterbur.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. You inferred that the brakes were not good. What
makes you think the brakes were not good?
A. Well, when you hit the brake, the brake would just kind of siege. I mean, it was like it would jump. It would just kind of hesitate. It wouldn't stop real quick. It was just like it was spongy, the master cylinder. And then we finally took it to a garage and had it checked and they said the brakes weren't very good on it.
Q. Was that the front brakes or the rear brakes?
A. All the way around.
Q. All the brakes were supposedly bad?
A. Uh-huh, getting bad.
Q. Bad or getting bad?
A. They were just about, I think, within a couple hundred more miles of being out. I can't remember what he said. It was down there at Meineke.
Q. Were the rotors and everything supposedly bad?
A. No, the rotors weren't bad. The pad was just getting bad, and he said the master cylinder was weak.
Q. Did you find any other problems with the car?
A. The transmission. Right after you fixed it the first time, it started going.
Q. Do you have any idea what might have caused it to go?
A. I have none whatsoever.
Q. Can you recall jumping over a curb or hitting an enormous pothole or anything like that?
A. That was the only car we had to go back and forth to work, and please believe me it was driven just to work and back and to the grocery store.
THE COURT: The question is: Did you hit a pothole or jump a curb?
THE WITNESS: No, no.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Did you ever notice it leaking any fluid of any kind?
A. I sure did not.
MR. OSTERBUR: I guess that will be all.
THE COURT: Do you have any other questions that you wanted to ask him about the things that were raised by Mr. Osterbur, ma'am?
MS. COLE: Pardon me?
THE COURT: Do you have any other questions that you wanted to ask Mr. Adair concerning anything that Mr. Osterbur raised in his questions?
MS. COLE: No, I don't.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir. Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Did you have additional witnesses that you wanted to present, ma'am?
MS. COLE: Yes, sir, I do. Tim Swigart. He works
Worden-Martin.
THE COURT: Would you come and stand before the bench and raise you right hand, please.
(Witness sworn.)
TIM SWIGART,
called as a witness by the Plaintiff herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. Would you state your name and address, sir.
A. Timothy Swigart, 808 South Spring Lake Road, Mahomet.
Q. And by whom are you employed?
A. Worden-Martin.
THE COURT: This is the person who examined your car, is that right, ma'am?
MS. COLE: Yes.
BY THE COURT:
Q. I gather that you're familiar with the vehicle that is an issue here. Would you tell me from the beginning from wherever you first had any contact with somebody about that what you know about the condition of the vehicle, please.
A. The car was towed in, and I was told to tear the engine down and inspect to see what was wrong with it. Upon tearing the engine down --
Q. About when was that, if you recall?
A. It was, well, I've got an estimate right here when it was done.
Q. Well, if there's something that would refresh your memory about when did that occur?
A. It was November 10,
1992.
Q. All right. Go ahead.
A. When I got the vehicle in and started tearing it down, it had a broken head bolt, a number 3 cylinder on the cylinder head. So, I went ahead and removed the cylinder head and could see where the piston had been moving too far up and basically hitting the cylinder head, and talked to my service adviser. He said go ahead and pull the oil pan on it and find out what was wrong. I removed the oil pan and found number 3 rod bearing had basically seized up and deteriorated to the point where it was no longer there, it was causing the piston to hit the cylinder head; and basically it had ruined the cylinder, the crankshaft and the connecting rod.
Q. Did you examine any other part of the car other that the engine?
A. No, sir.
Q. Were you requested to do so?
A. No, sir. I was not.
Q. In regard to the damage that you did observe, did you form any opinion as to how that damage came to be caused?
A. Well, I really cannot
say. The engine had oil in it. It can just -- I don't believe it was from
abuse. I think it may have just been an old engine, basically, a lot of
miles on it. The condition of the cylinder walls, where the rings wear on the
cylinder walls, it had grooves around all four cylinder walls from the rings
and that is a good indication that it's got a lot of miles on it.
Q. How long have you been in the business that you're in now, sir?
A. 13 years.
Q. Based on your experience, were you able to from an estimate as to how old the engine was, or how many miles it had on it if that's the frame of reference that
you normally deal in?
A. To get that amount of wear on the cylinder walls themselves, it would be in excess, I would imagine, of over 80,000 miles.
Q. You said you made an estimate. You conveyed to the plaintiff some information as to how much it would cost to fix the problems that you found, is that right?
A. Yeah, I've got written estimate right here.
Q. How much did you estimate that that would cost?
A. For the whole thing?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. $2,438.
THE COURT: Ms. Cole, was there something else that you wanted him to tell me about that he hasn't already?
MS. COLE: I would just like to ask you, would all that problems with the car be caused by overheating?
THE WITNESS: No. The cylinder head bolt, the
reason why it was broke, on this particular engine after a period of time the head bolt itself will get rusty and cause it to break. And sometimes taking them out and putting them back in more than once will cause that, too. But the head bolts were, as I recall, several of the head bolts ere very rusty and pitted, and one of them had actually broke.
MS. COLE: That's all I wanted to know.
THE COURT: Questions you wanted to ask him, Mr. Osterbur?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Did you find any problem with the oil? Was there any foreign materials of any kind in it?
A. Well, there was metal in it from the rod bearing in the crank shaft.
Q. Did you notice any kind of a grainy texture to
it?
A. Didn't notice any, no.
Q. The overheating that the motor had experienced, what happens to a car when it's badly overheated?
A. Well, are you talking really overheating or just overheating to the point where it can cause a head gasket to blow.
Q. Would you, if you ran all the fluid out of the motor and there was no steam of any kind appearing from the motor and it had been running beyond the time that any liquid had been in the motor whatsoever, what kind of damage could be construed to occur?
A. If you were to do that, you would warp the cylinder head. You would probably start deteriorating pistons.
Q. Would you deteriorate the cylinder walls?
A. If you deteriorated the piston, it would
probably start deteriorating the cylinder walls, right.
Q. Causing it to wear quickly?
A. Well, it would cause -- if your piston started to melt, you would start getting the aluminum buildup on the cylinder walls.
Q. Could a badly overheated motor start running out bearings?
A. In my experience, I've never seen that happen.
Q. Could it?
A. Anything is possible.
Q. If the bearings started to go out, would that cause any head bolt, when the piston started hitting the cylinder, would that cause a head bolt to break?
A. I do not believe so. Not in this case.
Q. Why not in this case?
A. As I explained earlier, the head bolts were rusty and pitted, and I believe that's what caused it to
break.
Q. Did you check anything about the transmission at all?
A. No, sir. I did not.
Q. Can you explain exactly what a rebuilt motor consists of?
A. Usually if you get a rebuilt motor, either a short block or a long block, depending on which it is, it usually comes with new crankshaft, new cam shaft and lifters, new pistons and bearings, new oil pump and the cylinder head reconditioned, new valves and timing gears and chains, depending on like I say if you get a short block or long block.
Q. What's the average
warranty on a rebuilt motor?
A. Usually 12 months,
12,000 miles.
Q. Are you familiar with Auto Zone and their engines and warranties?
A. Uh-huh. Theirs are usually 12/12.
Q. They're 6 and 6.
THE COURT: No, sir. You may not argue with him.
For the taped record, the testimony, unsworn testimony of the defendant is ordered stricken.
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. How far did you disassemble when you took the head off and took the oil pan off?
A. I removed the cylinder head and the oil pan and I removed all four pistons, and I think that is as far as I went.
Q. Do you know what -- Did you inspect the brakes?
A. No, sir.
MR. OSTERBUR: Well, I guess that's all.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. The damage that you saw when you examined this
particular car, was that something that would be consistent with a car that had overheated?
A. No, sir.
THE COURT: You may step down.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Did you have additional evidence you wanted to present, Ms. Cole?
MS. COLE: No.
THE COURT: Plaintiff rests.
Mr. Osterbur, this is your opportunity to present evidence in support of your defense.
MR. OSTERBUR: I would like to call Danny Osterbur.
THE COURT: Would you come and stand before the bench and raise you right hand, sir.
(Witness sworn.)
DANNY OSTERBUR,
called as a witness by the defendant herein, having been
first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
THE COURT: State your name and address, sir?
THE WITNESS: Dan Osterbur, 1005 North Garden Court, Mahomet.
THE COURT: The other Mr. Osterbur, I don't know what he know about this. Why don't you ask him some questions and get him going in the direction you want him to tell me about.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. OSTERBUR:
Q. Did you own a 1982 Buick Skylark?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you -- well, I'm sure your dad had given me the car?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have the transmission rebuilt just before giving the car to me?
A. The transmission was rebuilt 3-2 or '87.
Q. And how miles did the car have on it?
A. It doesn't have it on the
receipt that I have here; but I have a receipt when we had the brakes fixed,
which was earlier than that. It had 56,943 then, and that was a little over a
year before that. So, I would imagine it had on it about probably around
70,000 miles.
Q. Okay. So, the transmission and brakes and what have you were redone?
A. Yes.
Q. And it had about 70,000 miles or a little more?
A. Yeah. The brakes were redone at 56,943. Best I can remember, that was around 70,000.
MR. OSTERBUR: Okay.
THE COURT: Any questions
you want to ask him about his testimony, ma'am?
MS. COLE: No, sir.
THE COURT: You may step down, sir.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Additional witnesses, Mr. Osterbur?
MR. OSTERBUR: Just me, sir.
THE COURT: Raise you right hand.
(Witness sworn.)
JIM OSTERBUR,
the defendant herein, called as a witness herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q. State you name and address, sir.
A. Jim Osterbur, 2191 County Road, 2500 East, St. Joseph, Illinois.
Q. Mr. Osterbur, this is your opportunity to tell me why you think you don't owe the money that the
plaintiff claims.
A. I rebuilt the motor and did it properly an I just started to build it at the beginning in fact. the car was given to me. It was just delivered and dropped on my doorstep, so to speak.
And
I was told that the transmission was recently rebuilt, very recently. The car
had 113,000 miles on it. I got the impression that the transmission was
rebuilt within the 90,000-mile range. I was told that the brakes were done at
about that time, too, by Danny Osterbur's dad. That was the story I got. That's
the story I used.
I got the car running. When it appeared the motor was not running well, I made the car run and by redoing the head resetting some things and what have you. And I assured myself that the transmission was in good working order and the brakes were working fine.
The car sat
around for quite a while after that, debating on whether I wanted to rebuild
the motor or not and finally elected to rebuild to motor and spend $750 on
parts and machinery, machining, to have the motor rebuilt. The crankshaft was polished
and the block was bored and the pistons were bought new and it had full rebuilt
job.
The machinist who did the work unfortunately moved to Des Plaines, Illinois, two months ago; and I did not feel it was a good thing for me to ask him to come all the way back here to give testimony to that.
My dad was there and saw that it was being rebuilt, but I assume that that would not be considered a terribly proper witness. And the only other person saw it being rebuilt, I asked him and he did not want to take time off from work to come in. I have a statement from him. but that's all I have. I could have subpoenaed him,
I know, but I didn't.
Anyway, the motor was rebuilt in its entirety, and it ran well when it was finished, when I got the motor done. I ran it for roughly 2 to 3 hours worth altogether. I made short and the long trips with it and drove it around and assured myself that the transmission and the motor and everything was fine.
I inspected the radiator hoses that were new, and I assured myself that they were running properly. And I took the cap off the radiator and checked the water fluid through the radiator and made sure that that was all proper and running well. And the motor had been boiled out to remove andy particles and problems that might have been left over from machining when that work was done, so I felt that it should be and would be just fine.
The cruise control did work at that time. And
for that matter, the air conditioner did work at that time, too. The cruise control was hooked up.
When I initially or when Johnna came to buy it, I told her I expected the car to run for a considerable length of time, but I did not guarantee it. I also told her that it was a rebuilt motor and I didn't mean that the carburetion type system that's on it or any of the external parts were new. They are not, just the internal moving parts are new.
When she called me the first time, she told me something was wrong with the car and I went out and took a look at it. She was not there when I got there. Her boy friend met me, and we got in the car and drove around a section that. He made it very clear that he wanted all the money back, period. No "if's," no "ands," no "buts." And that was all. And he didn't offer any idea or any statement of any kind indicating that there'd been any
sort of problems with the car.
Something was wrong with the motor at the time. I couldn't identify entirely what it was. It wasn't a bad enough problem at that moment in time. I could clearly tell that something was a little wrong with the car, or not little, but something was wrong with the car. And like I said, we would have worked something out.
When -- I was going to -- the thought of fixing the car in Mr. Adair's mind was totally inappropriate and completely not acceptable, although he didn't mention it, he simply wanted the money back. That's all he wanted, period. And he became quite belligerent at that point. And I never had -- I guess it was obvious that I wasn't willing to fork over a check for $1200 after he had taken a good car, and I felt I knew for sure it was a good car and a good motor and done something to it and would not tell me what had occurred to it.
So, I moved him aside, essentially, and talked to Ms. Cole and told her that there are any number of things that can occur to the motor, either a brand new motor or a good motor or a newly rebuilt motor and has nothing to do with the mechanic. And one of the things that has occurred to my dad's, for instance, and to me for that matter is that the oils filter gasket that -- I've had an oil filter out on a running motor that has suddenly freed itself from its -- where it's supposed to be and started dumping oil out. And a motor that was a good motor went to a motor that was a rather poor motor in less that 30 seconds. And, you know, that simply a mechanic's problem. It is a mechanic's problem but it isn't. It is a manufacturer's defect and that's all there is to it. And you can take it to the manufacturer if you want to. That usually doesn't work.
Anyway, like I say, I explained to her that
there are other problems with. And at that point in time I decided since they were not going to -- at least her boyfriend was not going to allow me to even look at the car and fix it and was not going to -- simply wanted the money back and was not going to tell me what happened to the car, something happened to the car, wouldn't tell me what happened to the car in sense or form, simply said "I want the money back," that's basically it, I then decided that even though, you know, I don't know what's wrong with the car but the end result is that a car that she had bought from me I felt should have gone further that it did irregardless of what the problem was, even if it was some type of manufacturer's defect, that, no, decided that either that I would pay for half of the cost of a motor from Auto Zone in this particular case. They had a price on motors that I had noticed not long before this all occurred, and gave her what would have been our
could have been half the price of the short block, which is the new motor less the top hit or the cylinder, which has the valves in it. I was certain that that surely survived and was okay.
And so, I gave
her that because, like I say, I felt even if it was a manufacturer's defect or
whatever happened to the motor, I felt that surely it should go further than
that, so I gave her half the motor and felt that that was it. I felt that
the deal was done and left.
And like I say, while I was trying to talk to her, her
boyfriend was acting in a threatening way, so we did not discuss in length
anything.
So, two or three weeks later she called me up again and then she threatened, well, they're going to take me to court. And/or I need to fix it or something or I don't know what, but then she kept saying that her
boy friend, she didn't want to take me to court but her boyfriend wanted her take me to court. Anyway --
Q. I'm not considering that any more than I did when I told you a half an hour ago that that isn't relevant.
A. I understand, sir. I'm trying to relay the story as best I can.
Q. Well, get to the parts that have to do with the condition of the car, and don't have to do with settlement negotiations and you byplay with Mr. Adair.
A. When I came out the
second time, the -- I asked her, specifically, what happened to the car. She
said that the car had been running fine until she had been running out to her friend's
somewhere and the car overheating light had come on, and she had stopped and
ascertained that the car was leaking, and she elected to drive the 15 miles
further on to get to her destination.
At that time she said hat there was not steam, no water, no nothing
coming from the car at that point in time.
She told me that the radiator hose, when they opened the hood, the radiator hose had a knife slit. That's how she described it to me, a knife slit a half inch long in the top radiator hose just behind the nipple. The knife slit is not common to a radiator hose blowing out. When a radiator hose gives out or springs a leak, it usually develops a small pin hole or a big tear if it really is bad.
And she also presented me a big list of how this motor was terrible. I replaced the head gasket for her at that time because I personally felt that, you know, this is not my job and this is not my duty; but she needed the car, and I felt that I'd just go ahead and do it for her because I had some sympathy for her is really what it was.
So, I put in the head gasket, just partly to prove that this computer printout was whatever it was. The car ran fine at that time. And I showed her on the car, I made her stay out there with me while I took it apart, and I made her feel inside the cylinder wall that they were smooth, that there was no ring at the top of the cylinder walls. And she looked and agreed with that at that time, and I put the head gasket in and the car ran well.
I asked her how it is that the cruise control had gotten disconnected or why she had it disconnected. She said it didn't work. And she also said she didn't know how to use it and felt that I know that the cruise control was hooked up. I hooked it up myself as a clip that does not come off holding the cruise control on. To get it off, you have to sort of disconnect the throttle to the carburetor to get it off. So, someone had taken
it off without telling her, apparently.
I personally feel that the car was tampered with, and I personally feel as well that the overheating, serious overheating that she does describe herself and the fact that she says that the motor ran fine right to that point were seriously involved in how this car got to this stage.
I would agree or state that the cylinders were okay. When I took the cylinder off, they looked okay. I repaired a valve, took it to a machine shop and had the surface of the valve fixed where the ring of the cylinder head gasket had gone through and showed Johnna that or she helped me with another part of the valve to clean it up so that it would be in decent repair when it was back together. And assumed, I felt, that there was about a 50/'50 chance that a rod bearing or crank bearing would be okay, that the motor had survived and would be okay,
but certainly no guarantees of any kind.
I do think that the overheating or some other type of tampering were directly involved in this motor and perhaps the transmission. I do not know, nor do I know where it came from. That is essentially it.
THE COURT: Do you have questions you want to ask him about his testimony, Ms. Cole?
MS. COLE: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. COLE:
Q. Are you a certified mechanic?
A. I'm not a certified mechanic by a school. I've done a lot of mechanic work.
Q. Do you remember when I purchased or came out to purchase the car and you told me it had a good hundred thousand miles left on it, I should have no problem with it?
A. I told you that the motor was rebuilt and that the transmission was recently rebuilt, and I told you that I'd expected the car to run quite a long time and but that was not guaranteed.
I also told you that the internal moving parts of the motor is what was rebuilt; and the external parts, which would include the carburetor type device and other parts of that type were not replaced and were not new.
Q. In the ad, I believe I recall that it said "new motor and rebuilt transmission," is that correct?
A. I haven't read that
ad for two years or more, ma'am. I don't know exactly what is says.
Q. I believe it said new motor.
THE COURT: Ma'am, you can't argue with him. Ask him questions and then ask another one after he answers.
BY MS. COLE:
Q. When you gave me the $300 back to agree to pay
for half the motor, are you aware that it costs almost a thousand dollars to put a motor in a car so that I would pay more to put a new motor in it than I paid for the whole car?
A. I've put motors in them and I've known a lot of different mechanics that do it, too; and you can get a motor installed and taken out and installed for about a hundred to a hundred and a half, two hundred at the most.
MS. COLE: That's all.
THE COURT: Mr. Osterbur, I
want to be sure I understood something you said earlier. Did I understand
you correctly to say that this car had about a hundred and thirteen thousand
miles on it at the time you sold it to Ms. Cole?
MR. OSTERBUR: I believe
I did.
THE COURT: You may step down. Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
THE COURT: Other than your own testimony that you just concluded, Mr. Osterbur, was there evidence you wanted the Court to hear?
MR. OSTERBUR: Well, all I have is a couple of signed statements that --
THE COURT: We discussed that last week and I told everybody, you and her, that anybody who was going to be presented as far as any information to be considered had to be here live to testify; otherwise, it violates the other parties' right to cross-examine. And her affidavit from last week wasn't any good and yours from this week aren't any better.
MR. OSTERBUR: That's all I have.
THE COURT: All right. Defendant rests.
For the taped record, the Court will state, first of all, that the Court judicially notices that the definition of fraud in this state is a statement made by
one party -- let me back up -- a factual statement made by one party with the intent that another party rely on that factual statement. Further, that the statement when made is not true and the party making the statement either knows it's not true or should have known that it's not true at the time mad. Further, that by reason of the statement made and the reliance on it, the party to whom it's made suffers damages, and then the law is to the effect that those damages are compensable because of the conduct of the party making the statement.
Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1,
Mr. Osterbur's ad reads: "New motor. Almost new transmission. CV joints joints, brakes, etc." At the time Mr. Osterbur caused that statement to be published, he knew that this was not a new motor, it was a rebuilt motor because by his testimony he rebuilt it. He received the vehicle from a family member and made the
statement that it had an almost new transmission, although the transmission would the have had approximately 43,000 miles on it; and that it had nearly new brakes at a time when the brakes would have had 63,000 on them by the testimony that was presented here today. That's "should have known." You're not entitled to make statements like that without investigating them, even if you're relying on somebody else's information.
Now, as far as the reliance, Ms. Cole, first of all, testified that she relied on the statements made by Mr. Osterbur. And in the context of this, and advertised sale of a motor vehicle, the law says that she has the right to rely on things that are said, and if they're not true, then she's entitled to compensation.
There's a
dispute about the cause of this particular problem; but zeroing in on the motor
for the moment, I believe and find that the credible evidence
establishes that this motor failed because it was old, not because of something that Ms. Cole did to it. And I believe in assessing that credibility we can begin with the false statements that were made at the time that this purchase was first consummated.
Secondly, the witnesses who aren't here to verify Mr. Osterbur's statement that the motor was rebuilt and in a fine working order at the time Ms. Cole received it as well as the statements of a qualified mechanic who testified that the conditions that he observed were simply not consistent with the properly rebuilt motor and certainly nowhere near consistent with a new motor, which is what Mr. Osterbur advertised that he was selling to Ms. Cole.
Since the compensation that would be available at that point would either be the value of the car or what it cost to fix the problem, and motor alone
apparently would cost something in excess of $2,000 to fix, the nit would be
the value of the vehicle itself, I specifically find that there was no
accord and satisfaction in regard to this money paid by Mr. Osterbur the first
time the car went bad because there was no agreement to accept that in total
satisfaction of all of the problems wrong with this car, which was what it
would take to reach an accord and satisfaction.
The docket entry is as follows:
Additional testimony heard. Finding is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Judgement is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $1200 plus court costs. No written judgment order is required.
Ms. Cole, if you don't already have one, down here out of my line of sight is a set of pamphlets called "After Judgment is Entered in Small Claims Court." That
has the procedure in how to collect your judgment if you and Mr. Osterbur can't agree on how it's to be paid.
Mr. Osterbur, if you don't have one of those booklets, you might take one. It has the rights that are available to you in such a proceeding if one is needed.
Court is in recess.
(Which were all the proceedings
had in this cause on this date.)
ITEM #96
MOTION FOR TURNOVER OF EVIDENCE
FILED APR 26,1993
92-S-2991
I believe the motor and transmission were tampered with. I clearly said so during trial. I told the plaintiff and her boyfriend, I would soon be picking up the car and asked her where it was located (IMMEDIATELY) after the trial. She told me it was located where she lived and made NO indication it would be a problem. I went to a chemical engineer, Ed Perkins, at the U of I, and arranged for testing of oil residues on april 30,1993, his earliest day available. And arranged for other services to pick up the car for me. On april 23, 1993 friday the boyfriend call and wants the money, and is going to haul the car away.
I plainly tell him I will pay at the last legal day possible, 30 days from the date, barring continuances and I will be picking up the car on april 30, 1993. And clearly told him NO CAR, NO MONEY! I NOW OWN THAT CAR, He complains says NO.
James F. Osterbur
A MOTION TO STAY JUDGEMENT
OCT 13, 1993
92-S-2991
A review: (1) case 92-s-2991 has NOT BEEN SETTLED within the court
2. Case 92-s-2991 has become state of ill supreme court case 76128 and is awaiting those proceedings.
3. The requirement to pay PRIOR to all current and necessary court proceeding IS a liability of/for the court system, or the presiding judge.
4. The presiding judge, by avoiding the requirement for awaiting trial to be over, and requiring payment made Prior to the supreme court case 76128, HAS INSURED PERSONALLY the debt, that shall be owed to the defendant should he win case 76128 with interest and penalty!
James F. Osterbur