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.