Although it is plain and obvious

Just in case there is some small aspect of ambiguity in the mind of the court;   represented here on this web site, but not entered into court/ is a statement that will apply to any need to appeal. Should that arise.
Redress of grievances is UNLIKE any other aspect of constitutional law, it takes power from the individual employee “to cast a vote for us”/   and gives it to the people themselves in the form of a demand:   this is about us/ NOT our employees. We will make this decision. Or more clearly, redress is about the failure or presumed failure of our employees, and as such cannot be more clear:   WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND,   to receive an accounting, the evidence of our reality in terms of threat and all that we ask, and the truth guarded by the protection of the court; so that we may decide for ourselves as one citizen equals one vote.   Redress removes the power of office/ and subjects the employee of this people:   to their own inquiry as to how and why did this crisis happen.  But more than that, redress means: WE THE PEOPLE, will take this matter into our own hands. 

The potential of the court or defense to surmise that because I say to them “I cannot be held liable on a monetary basis for an entire nation/ and their decision to go to court” should not be misunderstood.  Rather I am liable for asking the court to prepare the law for this people, and let them decide if they will or desire to take responsibility away from their own employees and make this decision and any other they demand:  for themselves.  How can I be liable for that?  It is their case, not mine.  I merely present the law and demand that it shall be OUR LAW, as written within constitutional duties of the courtroom and judiciary.

The potential for a second assumption, that because I say to this court I cannot “simply declare” that I represent the people of this entire nation, that I have no access to the law, is errant.  Rather as the law allows, this is to “assemble the people by peaceful means, and therefrom petition the government to recognize: WE ARE THE OWNERS HERE”.  WE MAKE THE DECISION, when we declare by vote among ourselves, “no confidence in you”.    How can I say before this court or this nation, that I will represent them/ when in fact I can only represent me, unless the people themselves shall choose to allow me to represent them in this case.  That is not a political statement/ but a legal one respecting the boundaries of “yours and mine”.   While the potential is here to allow the people to be represented by “an elected official, or the court itself”/ I DO present the evidence of   US SUPREME COURT CASE 08-1339 Osterbur v.  USA and STATE OF IL.   And remind each one.   These defendants, did not support the law/ nor did the US supreme court obey it.  Consequently, there is a need for someone to monitor the lawyers who must represent the people, and simply hire or fire those who do not prove to be on the side of the people themselves.  But that cannot be done by me, unless the people “choose” that I should represent them in this way.  If they do not/ then the representative for the people falls to either the judiciary or the president.   Either way, any assumption that I am in error, due to the reality:   I can neither accept or allow the liabilities of redress of grievances as a personal element in my life, OR expect that the people themselves would choose me for their representative in this courtroom .  They must decide, I cannot.   RATHER WHAT I CAN DO,   “IS ASSEMBLE” IN A PEACEFUL FASHION, under the law of this first amendment of the constitution of the USA/ in order that they themselves may select to petition the government,   “Our democracy”.    And demand that this or any other crisis as is plainly proven to exist:   SHALL BE BY THEIR OWN DECISION, AND BY THEIR OWN VOTE.  One vote, for myself, for the matters most important to me.  NOT a vote for someone else to vote for me.  In this matter selected, WE THE PEOPLE SAY, by redress:    WE WILL DECIDE, one vote per citizen/ every citizen votes on this issue for themselves.
The only other tiny bit of ambiguity refers to the ability of a county courtroom, to apply a petition of redress to this entire nation.  But this courtroom is in fact, the proper venue for this decision, as it is for the people themselves. The petition of redress assembles the will of the people in stages.  First, it is I who stand before the court and demand it, as my legal right under the law.  Second comes a jury to assert, “this one is right/ or wrong”.  Third comes the reality if chosen to go forward, to assemble this champaign county in its own choice to ask the state, if we can in fact ask the nation.  And if the state says to this nation:   WE MUST HAVE REDRESS, by their popular vote/   then either the nation itself must say no, or proceed to REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES for the people.   The law is then assembled, and prepared for court. The employees of government and every other aspect of need for the people according to their demands:    HAS BEEN PETITIONED TO TRIAL.                      This trial is not, about me/ I am the citizen who begins the process by which we all decide/ by which we all take responsibility for the decision that we made together.      

    I am the plaintiff, I represent myself!  And I say to you plainly, I have indeed    Presented this case within the letter, intent, and procedural demands of the law / as applied by the first amendment to the US constitution.
James Frank Osterbur   1/20/10