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.