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.