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.