[copied from handwritten text, should be viewed as close as reasonably possible, sent to judicial inquiry board, IL]

TO: JUDICIAL INQUIRY BOARD

AN ITINERARY OF BIAS; case 92-S-2991 presiding judge: Harry E. Clem

This case is well documented through "the notice of an appeal filed may 20,1993", "the appellate court documents filed sept 1, 1993," and the prayer for leave to appeal filed at the state supreme court, docketed and awaiting session.

Area's NOT fully defined

"why wasn't the lawsuit filed when the car allegedly quit"? Plaintiff states again: this case was presented as an extended warranty case: NOTHING ELSE, NO WARRANTY, IF ISSUED, WOULD HAVE EXPIRED. And clearly indicates in court, the same. pg 71 trial transcript 21st day of april 1993 line 10: Question: Are you a certified mechanic:

This question goes to the quality of work, and in NO POSSIBLE WAY suggests the work was not done.

The issue of warranty was denied: "the motor was notably leaking yet the plaintiff drove it 15 miles farther:" The judge directs this order by placing his hand over the microphone and order the defendant NOT to pursue, OR the fact that money was accepted.

Defendants motion was dismissed without reading: even though the motion clearly indicates an ORAL CONTRACT was initiated and accepted by Ms Cole.

Hearing on citation pg 2 lines 1-21

Confrontation is evident: supremacy of the state supreme court is denied. Refusal to acknowledge evidence sent prior to citation hearing. Refusal to accept evidence presented by the defendant in court. Refusal to allow defendant testimony as allowed by the rule of a motion trial. Judge elects to proceed.

Failure to follow standard procedure identified above indicates, "illegal search and seizure and a violation of privacy laws.

Motion hearing to stop judgement CLEARLY DEFINES PREJUDICE pg 2 lines 20-21. a cash bond of $1500.00 required. Judgement in this case was $1290.00 total. Yet I am required to post $210.00 more than I am at risk to lose, IS THIS FAIR? Or having already examined me IS this another indication of prejudice for the plaintiff.

James F. Osterbur

The appellate court shall be dealt with through issues raised at the state supreme court gen #4-93-0441 now #76128 and state supreme court gen #4-93-0441 just sent.

NOTED: and hereby testified to, the ad in question which was NOT read until the court issued its statement pg 72 line 3-7 read pg 74 line 15-16 WAS NOT, the ad placed over the phone by the defendant.

The defendants ad should have read, (was dictated as) "newly rebuilt motor, recently rebuilt transmission, CV joints, (front, was forgotten in this letter, but was in the initial ad) brakes, etc."

Upon seeing the ad in print the paper was notified by phone to change the ad (correct it) but I mentioned the car sold and they did not do it (change the ad). It is suspected the receptionist tried to save me some expense, even though I told her it was important. This ad sheet is produced once a week, I did not see the ad until nearly a week later and called at that point.

James F. Osterbur

NOTED: and hereby testified to, the mechanics testimony of 20 months after the fact was expected to be heard as "20 months after the fact, and several thousand miles usage". That fact limited examination by the defendant to relevant issues NOT heresy. It is common practice to rebuild this GM motor with its original head bolts.

James F. Osterbur

NOTED: and hereby testified to, judge uses illegal procedure pg 57 after order to stricken, microphone noise exists on tape (places hand over it order "NO warranty or money paid issues") Defendant states DID interfere with cross-examination, a defendants right

James F. Osterbur

NOTED: and hereby testified to: THIS was a extended warranty case ANY NOTABLE indication that the term FRAUD could or would possibly be used, would have resulted in the defendant bringing live witness's to VERIFY; rebuilding took place! There was NONE, as the common citizen might perceive.

James F. Osterbur

A SIMPLE SUMMARY

A dispute involving a car purchase 18 months prior to summons.

Summons and plaintiff declare warranty issue; JUDGE changes to fraud issue returns full price of car

Post trial motion indicates basic interaction "she could have anything asked for", Defendant motion NOT read, questioned judge says: Want justice get a lawyer!

Citation hearing refuses evidence or testimony from defendant.

post trial motion to stop judgement allowed but forced to put up $210.00 MORE THAN JUDGEMENT!