I do as well ask a formal explanation of rule 343: the illinois supreme court in an order entered nov 9, 82YY.unless within 14 days of the entry date of that orderY.. The question: do I or do I not have 14 days to comply? Judgment for the taped record begins on pg 73 line 21. Judge clem declares:Y@that the court judicially notices that the definition of fraudY.@ Pg 73 line 24 pg 74 line 1, as well as pg 74 line 2-13.

1. APPEALED on the grounds: at no time, within the subpoena, nor during the trial did the plaintiff accuse the defendant of fraud. This case was a warranty case from the beginning. I, the defendant, stand accused by Judge clem of fraud, NOT by the plaintiff!
2. CAUSE IN FACT: judgment on the basis of fraud, could not have been delivered except for: judge clems own accusations. \
3. CAUSE OF INJURY: defamation of my character, as well as, slander to my good name, WOULD NOT exist: except for judge clems accusations.
4. APPEALED on the grounds: the defendant received NO warning of the charge fraud, would be , (NEVER WAS) brought against him.
5. CAUSE IN FACT: that NO verbal or written charge of fraud was made by the plaintiff, the defendant saw no cause to defend against accusations, he was not accused of!

Judgment for the taped recordY.pg 74 line 17-20Y..@he knew that this was not a new motor, it was a rebuilt motor@Y

6. APPEALED on the grounds: pg 63 lines 17-24 the plaintiff knew it was rebuilt, and knew exactly what I meant by rebuilt, and again pg 71 lines 18-24 pg 72 lines 1,2.

Judgment for the taped record: pg 74 lines 21-24, Y..@almost new transmission, although the transmission would then have had approximately 43,000 miles on it; and that it had nearly new brakesY@

7. CAUSE is established: that the failure of a family member (a retired bishop of the lutheran church) is at fault.
8. APPEALED on the grounds: the defendant himself brought up the issue of mileage NOT the plaintiff or judge clem. The defendant learned that an error was made during information relayed to Ms. Cole., at the same time as the court (prior to: IN FACT), and during his testimony sought to correct that misinformation, at the earliest opportunity! Irregardless of reasonable payment, due to misinformation.

Judgment for the taped record; pg 75 line 3, Y.@should have known.@

9. APPEALED on the grounds: the defendant made known at the earliest possible moment. Pg 61, lines 9-15

Judgment for the taped record; pg 75 line 10-13Y@if they=re not true, then she=s entitled to compensation.@

(a)APPEALED on the grounds: ms. Cole received $300 for damage to the engine she inflicted herself, pg 15 line 10-24 and pg 16 line 1-24. Ms cole also received engine repair from damage she caused, for the cost of the parts, pg 17 line 1-24, pg 18 lines 1-5.

Judgment for the taped record; pg 75 line 14-19 Y..@the motor failed because it was old@..

10. APPEALED on the grounds; pg 17 lines 13-24 the plaintiff clearly identifies this is a newly rebuilt motor, line 19-22 pg 17, at approximately four months from the sale date,. Ask any mechanic!
11. APPEALED on the grounds; the plaintiffs mechanic inspected the motor nov 10, 92 pg 51 line 8. That would be twenty months after purchase.
12. APPEALED on the grounds; warranty periods do not extend beyond 12 months or 12,000 miles for new car dealerships pg 57 line 3. Pg 56 line 22-24.
13. CAUSE IN FACT: the trial should have been DISMISSED from the beginning, as this was a warranty case and 18 months passed from the time of purchase, until the subpoena was issued. VOIDING any hope of warranty work by a new car dealership.
14. APPEALED on the grounds: ms. Cole offered NO reason and judge clem precluded any explanation that might have been obtained, pg 45 line 22-24 and pg 46 line 1-7. On evidence that could account for warranty to be extended. Pg 63 line 19-20 NO warranty was given or purchased.
15. APPEALED on the grounds ; new car warranties are VOID if the engine is run without fluids pg 15 line 12, pg 15 line 24, pg 16 line 1-6 and again pg 16 line 20-22, pg 68 lines 3-13.
16. APPEALED on the grounds; pg 62 lines 1-6, pg 16 lines 13-19 as defined by the words Ait is a manufacturer=s defect@ pg 65 line 20-21 or tampering pg 68 line 14-21
17. APPEALED on the grounds; pg 16 lines 20-22 Athe car ran well@.

Judgment for the taped record:Y..@false statements were made@ pg 75 line 21.

18. APPEALED on the grounds: NO false statements were made. Credible evidence from the person delivering the car to me was presented by verbal testimony and I accepted that testimony in the same way and manner that judge clem has accepted testimony throughout this case.
19. CAUSE IN FACT; If testimony cannot be accepted Ashould have known@ pg 75 line 3. Then statements made by judge clem can be used as LIABLIOUS : due to statements pg 56 lines 22-24 Awarranty periods are 12 month, 12,000 miles@, and pg 51, line 8 Ainspected the motor nov 10 , 92@, and pg 16 lines 20-22 . Adid the cars problems result after this overheating? Answer YES, and pg 17 line 4-24.
20. CAUSE IN FACT; based upon the plaintiffs own testimony pg 17 lines 19-22 Acylinder walls were clean and smooth and there was NO ridge at the top, is that correct? Answer Athat=s correct!@ FURTHER pg 17 lines 23-24 and pg 18 line 1, AY.that a newly bored engine has a smooth cylinder wall and has NO ring at the top!@ Judge clem Ashould have known@! , that proof of a new (rebuilt) motor was demonstrated and acknowledged by Ms. Cole. Thereby: statements issued against the defendant pg 75 line 16-22 were unwarranted, and erroneous, and falls clearly within judge clems directive pg 75, lines 1-6.

Judgment for the taped record: pg 75 lines 23-24 Athe witnesses who aren=t here@

21. APPEALED on the grounds; this was a warranty case from the beginning and 18 months had passed which exceeds all new car dealership warranties on rebuilt motors pg 56 line 24. Cause was given pg 62 line 7-19.
22. CAUSE OF ACTION; warranty problems, defendants stand; warranty wasn=t given, warranty time limits had ceased. Therefore NO reason existed to require two men considerable time, effort and billing to the defendant, when there was no case.

Judgment for the taped record: pg 76 line 3 Y.@a qualified mechanic who testified.@

23. APPEALED on the grounds; investigated 20 months after purchase pg 51 line 7 and pg 6 line 5-11 bought march 91, mechanic looked at nov 10, 92!
24. CAUSE IN FACT; testimony developed after a period of 20 months to determine, Anew motor status@ is irrelevant!
25. CAUSE IN FACT: BIAS is evident, in that this testimony was allowed, specifically used in judgment, and accepted over prior statements by the defendant and the plaintiff pg 16 line 20-22, pg 17 line 19-24.
26. CAUSE OF ACTION; slander exists due to credible evidence being discarded and irrelevant testimony accepted. Pg 76 line 1-8.

Judgment for the taped record; Y.@no agreement to accept that in total satisfaction of all of the problems wrong with the carY.@ Pg 76 lines 16-19.

27. APPEALED on the grounds: Anew car status@ was never granted by the defendant, pg 63, lines 19-20
28. APPEALED on the grounds; the initial complaint was the result of tampering pg 68 line 3-21 or a manufacturers defect pg 67 line 1-3.
29. APPEALED on the grounds; pg 68 line 3-13 ms. Cole contributed to her own problems. Ashe elected to drive 15 miles farther@.
30. CAUSE IN FACT: I am responsible for my work, NOT the manufacturers product! Pg 65 line 20-23
31. APPEALED on the grounds; NO hard (physical) evidence of any problem was submitted. Engine problems produce transmission problems (symptoms of) without actual problems being present within the transmission.
32. CAUSE IN FACT; ms. Cole has already established she knew nothing about cars throughout her testimony. Ms. Cole has already established a previous attempt to portray this motor as bad pg 17 line 4-24 , pg 18 line 1-8, when in fact , it was repaired for $50 dollars.

Judgment for the taped record: pg 76 lines 19-21 Y..@which was what it would take to reach an accord and satisfaction.

33. APPEALED on the grounds; BIAS is clearly evident by judge clem disregarding evidence presented pg 21 line 13-18 Y..@he had a gun@Y. Pg 22 line 18-20 , pg 23 lines 5,6 Aexactly@ (by judge clem pg 76 line 14 Y.@no accord..@)
34. APPEALED on the grounds; pg 64 lines 1-10 there was evidence presented at the initial complaint of a cover-up of the overheating problem pg 66 line 1-9 and an unwillingness to work in good faith with the defendant pg 30 line 5-8.
35. CAUSE IN FACT: Aaccord & satisfaction@ cannot be reached unless each party is willing to participate, the defendant proved willing: pg 8 line 12-21, pg 64 line 1-24, pg 65 line 1-24 , 66; 1-24, 67 ; 1-17 and pg 21 line8-10.
36. CAUSE OF ACTION; ms. Cole purposely neglected to tell judge clem, about her overheating the car and driving on. Pg 7 line 19-24. That information was brought out in cross-examination

Judgment for the taped record; Y@judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $1200 plus court cost@ pg 77 line 1-3

37. APPEALED on the grounds; pg 11 lines 20-22. $1200 represents the full amount of the car purchase. The vehicle was in the possession of ms. Cole 18 months before subpoena was served, pg 6 line 7-11.
38. CAUSE OF ACTION: testimony quashed by judge clem regarding warranty issues and/or previously agreed to money for motor. This court directive does not appear within the transcript DUE TO: judge clem reached forward, placed his hand upon his microphone and thereafter directed the defendant during cross-examination of mechanic Timothy Swigart. This accusation is supported by reproducible evidence and eye witness.
39. CAUSE OF ACTION: Prejudice is evident, within judge clems judgment pg 74 line 1 YY@fraud@Y. As the defendant was never directly accused by the plaintiff. Judge clems use of the word Afraud@ clearly defines: judge clem exceeded his authority as judge, CHOOSING instead to become the PROSECUTOR. Demonstrating beyond doubt; CLEAR BIAS.

SUMMARY: upon critical examination NO one is perfect. Use of the judge, is made to represent the simple statements made against me are not, in their entirety as they appear. A motion was delivered to the judge, intent upon proving or disproving TAMPERING; which he denied without reading! James F. Osterbur

STATE OF ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT 4^TH DISTRICT

8/31/93

RE: cole, Johanna s. V. Osterbur, Jim

Gen# 4-93-0441

Table of contents (trial)

Witnesses Johanna S. Cole direct examination pg 4, cross examination pg 13

Richard Adair direct examination pg 25 cross examination 41

Exhibit #1 newspaper advertisement

Timothy Swigart direct examination 50 cross examination 54, re-direct 57 plaintiff rests

Danny Osterbur direct examination by Osterbur 59, Jim Osterbur direct, by the court 59 cross by Ms. Cole 71

Defendant rests.

Table of contents (appeal) pg # refer to appeal transcript/ pg # in appeal refer to trial transcript

Formal complaint pg 1 , judgment reviewed pg 2-22, judgment FRAUD 2-4, appealed (never accused) 2(a), cause delivered (judge=s own accusation) 3 (b), cause answered (damage done) 3(c) appealed (NO warning) 3 (d), cause shown (NO evidence) 4 (e), judgment misinformation 4-5, appealed (was informed) 4 (a), judgment erroneous information 5-6, cause (defined) 5 (a), appealed (defendant corrected error at his own cost) 5 (b), judgment should have known 6, appealed (was corrected) 6 (a) , judgment entitled 7, appealed (received) 7 (a) judgment accusation 7 :

APPEALED: APROOF IDENTIFIED 7a / irrelevant testimony 8b/ warranty exclusion 8c/ cause (warranty issue void) 8 d/ no warranty extension 9e/ plaintiff voided warranty 9f / problem identified 10g/ proof delivered 10h/ judgment (false statements) 10-13/ evidence examined 10a / cause (should have known) 11 b/ cause (plaintiff acknowledges new motor) 12c/ judgment (no witness) 13-14 / cause delivered 13a/ cause (no warranty, no reason) 14b / Judgment qualified mechanic 14-15/ irrelevant 14a / cause (should have known )14 b / cause (BIAS) 14c / cause (damage done) 14 d / judgment total satisfaction 15-17/ not relevant 16 a/ cause identified 16 b / contributed 16 c / cause (responsibility) 16 d / NO physical evidence 17 e/ cause (previous attempt denied, proved false) 17 f/ judgment satisfaction 17-19 / bias 18 c/ cover up 18 b / cause (defendant proves) 19 c / cause (cover up to judge) 19 d / requiring cross examination judgment NO expense 20-22 / unfair 20 a / cause (testimony ) 20 b / cause ( prejudice, bias, unprotected accusations)/ summary (dismissal) 22

Costs: 6 hours of the defendants time @ $15 per hour total $90 dollars

Transcript of trial (some pages)

State of Illinois supreme court supreme court building , Springfield IL 62706

Jim Osterbur defendant pro se vs Johanna S. Cole plaintiff pro se

Linda s Frank, circuit clerk champaign courthouse

Darryl Pratscher clerk of appellate court 4^th district

Gen # 4-93-0441 champaign county # 92-s-2991

(transcribed from handwritten)

I, James F. Osterbur, do hereby acknowledge and submit for consideration this petition for leave to appeal

I do Pray (a forced term) the judges charges to uphold the highest court in the state of Illinois shall hear my complaint, acknowledge my right , and uphold justice as the rightful cause and true purpose of the court!

I, James F. Osterbur, DO enclose a copy of the order of the appellate court, DISMISSED upon the date, sept 2, 93 . I, do hereby state, I ,James F. Osterbur made known to judge clem and the plaintiff during the motion trial an appeal would be filed (initial proceedings) dated may 11, 93 pg 5 line 7,8. I do now make known an appeal to the state supreme court is made sept 21, 93. Original trial date april 21, 93 Champaign county courthouse. Trial 92-s-02991 gen 4- 93- 0441

A statement of the points relied upon JURISDICTION reversal of the appellate court decision rests upon constitutional issues as follows:

4. argument is made DEMANDING the legislative law, as required by the constitution and its bill of rights which distinctly allows the court to dismiss on the grounds of : PROCEDURE is FUNDAMENTALLY GREATER THAN JUSTICE!

(a) reliance for this argument is based within and upon the bill of rights as follows : section 5: Athat the legislative and executive powers of the state shall be separate and distinct from the judiciaryY@ AS INTERPRETED; Athat the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciaryY.@ AS INTERPRETED: laws and the right of rule, belong to the legislature and executive powers. Laws, or the obligation of the people, or rights of the people, are STRICTLY established by the legislature and executive powers. THE JUDICIARY MUST COMPLY within the limits and intent of law. Section 6:Y..@nor bound by any law to which they have not , in like manner, assented, for the public good.@ AS INTERPRETED: IF, the clear and distinct law, handed down by the legislative or executive powers does not exist, THEN the judiciary HAS exceeded its authority: Anot to apply rules of conduct; RATHER to conceive issues of procedure or infractions of rule, greater than JUSTICE!

Section 7: that all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, BY ANY AUTHORITY, without the consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights, and ought NOT to be exercised. AS INTERPRETED: the CLEAR AND DISTINCT description of ; who determines who is in charge, and why. Section 15 that no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. AS INTERPRETED: Justice, IS A RIGHT, anything which alters that RIGHT, is to be abolished. Section 2: that all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, THE PEOPLE; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them. AS INTERPRETED: WE THE PEOPLE DO grant the right and rule of law, for the purpose of justice, peace, and security; the duty given to the court is: to preserve, honor, and protect. Those justices unwilling to do their best, do NOT honor their position, and should be REMOVED!

5. Argument is made: fails to provide citations to any authority.

3.Argument is made: Afails to provide YYa coherent factual backgroundY.@

Appellate brief DOES indeed take a step by step examination of the trial and Judgment using actual trial statements. Pg 21, of the appellant brief: AY.this accusation is supported by reproducible evidence and eyewitness. This therefore must be considered adequate as any/all trial is entirely based within these REASONABLE CLAIMS.

4. Argument is made : AYY.arguments made without citation of supporting authority as deemed waived on appealY@

4. Argument is made: AY.appellant is appearing pro seY..obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel.@

This appellant has NO complaint regarding the same rule theory, BUT this appellant does complain regarding the very issue pg 1,2, of the appellant brief requesting clarity of rule, for which the appellate court justices DENIED by means of omission. The appellant DOES suggest copies of such rules as apply to procedure SHOULD be handed out by court upon request.

5. Argument is made: AY..substantial failure to complyY.@

Appellant has received NO EVIDENCE from the appellate court which supports this decision; RULES that apply Aa coherent description of the pertinent parts of the provision verbatim@.

(1) FOR CLARITY: NO objection was raised to the mechanics testimony because, a current mechanical state was acceptable to the defense, HOWEVER use of current data as a description of 20 months prior to, by the judge was NEVER expected as it is an obvious ERROR!

 

 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, SUPREME COURT

9/09/93

RE: Cole, Johanna S. v. Osterbur , Jim

TO THE COURT BRIEF

A trial initiated over an extended warranty period. Defendant decrees, NO warranty given 18 months too long.

Trial judge : for the record, becomes the prosecuting attorney and accuses defendant of fraud, PLAINTIFF NEVER DID.

Appellate court; DISMISSED, thereby failing (as stated in abstract) to provide appellant DUE PROCESS. James F. Osterbur

TABLE OF CONTENTS: SUPREME COURT 9/05/93

RE: GEN # 4-93-0441

List of grievances pg 1, supporting authority 2, respect 3, justice defined by constitution 4, rebuttal/ request for supporting authority from the court 5, court authority challenged 6, an oral contract 7, court disregard for rights of a public citizen 8, exclusive privilege 9 , tyranny defined 10, summary 11, justice defined by appellant 12,

STATE OF ILLINOIS, SUPREME COURT

9/05/83

RE: gen #4-93-0441 trial # 92 Bs- 2991

TO THE COURT: an abstract, in response to dismissal 9/2/93

I, James F. Osterbur, DO respond to stipulations, which are unjust, an oral contract broken, and claims for supporting authority waived, and the disregard for justice hidden within the words: Asubstantial failure of appellant to comply@.

Therefore I , James F. Osterbur, shall seek higher authority. It is my right to expect reasonable treatment, within the constitution, as provided for, by the citizens of the United States of America. I am a citizen and shall recite to YOU the framework description upon which the constitution is based:

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.

The court is reminded the individual public citizen IS its only duty! The citizenry is the government, and the public citizen is: its official, its soldier, and its supporter. With respect to government documents Aa declaration, july 4, 1776@ a passage reads: he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public goodY..for the sole purpose of fatiguing themY.a mock trial.

It is from the bill of rights, section 3: that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is BEST which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community 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. And again.

Section 15; that NO free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

I, DO hereby declare, the appellate courts= , order filed 9/02/93 dismissing gen #4-93-0441 FAILS to conform to the doctrines granted by legislatures of these United States of America. Further; the bill of rights, section 7; that all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised. Section 7 reads clearly to the pleadings in question whereby I, a public citizen, come seeking justice, am TURNED AWAY for slight procedural faults. IS THIS JUSTICE? The question represented in section 7 IS: did the representatives of the United States of America grant any authority, to determine rules , whereby Justice is dismissed without due process? The only defense for this action; Adid the appellant refuse to comply? He DID comply, only to be dismissed for rules left unmentioned in the court order. As to compliance of the documents themselves; I, James F. Osterbur, do hereby testify that I called the Aclerk of the court at (217) 782-2586@ (the appellate court), regarding the mailing of said document and purposely asked that representatives of the clerks= office, IF Athere is anything out of place or in error regarding these paper, will the court, send me notice so that I may correct them/ prior to judgment@? That representative, declared to me, AYES if something is amiss, I would receive opportunity to correct before judgment is made. I DO hereby declare; Aif not for these words I would have driven to Springfield to the court, to be certain, everything was in order. I , James F. Osterbur DO hereby declare, I accepted those words as an oral contract with the court! DUE PROCESS therefore becomes a part of the appeals proceedings, as well as the original trial in that: A a person is entitled to be informed of all, ( and protected from) UNFAIR ACTS and procedures.@

Within the brief, issued by the appellant, was a formal complaint and request for clarity, regarding the appellants rights, through the court, which was NEVER addressed in their dismissal, why not? The court claims, failure to provide any citations to any authority, or a coherent factual background, yet these magistrates fail their own test. Have I, a public citizen, NO right to inquire regarding the law and its interpretation? ARE court officials entitled to exclusive personal decisions OR must they address the public as citizens themselves, no greater than! It was written; that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rightsY.pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. JUSTICE redefines law as that which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; for the public! Rules solely for the benefit of court officials become tyranny, as shown within the simple words: Athe court deems appellants response to the rule insufficient and orders the appeal dismissed for failure to comply with supreme court rules.@

Regarding the failure to cite supporting authority: it was expected that the issue of justice was sufficient, and the JUDGE competent to understand. James F. Osterbur.

IN SUMMARY; factual evidence, the transcript of trial 92-s-2991 WAS present. Coherent factual background defined by documents presented by the appellant were presented, and do show specific instances of error in judgments, made by the presiding judge. The claim for DUE PROCESS: Ato be informed of all charges against the defendant@ IS CLEAR and needs no further supporting authority. THAT JUSTICE IS GREATER, than ANYTHING which the court has alleged, IS BEYOND DOUBT!

JUSTICE is not the decision of man, it is the reality of honest work, fair trade, and truth before self James F. Osterbur a RESULT, not a rule.

Fundamental justice is a right! The need for definition of these words is appalling. I would offer to the court a simple statement: what would the framers of the constitution say to you, if this case represents what they worked and died for?

I, James F. Osterbur, asked for justice, adequately defined all legal violations as pertains to this case. Have stated damages, unusable evidence and lack of due process, in NO uncertain terms. Yet all the appellate court can offer is dismissal based upon a slight infraction of a minor procedural mistake. It is beyond doubt, Athose who defend this nation, that it may live up to the words,@ Afor which it stands, A DID NOT/ DO NOT fight and die for this. The purpose of law and government is CLEAR: to define and adhere to standards that are acceptable to the vast majority, and to allow reasonable freedom to all. The purpose of a judge: is to identify that standard, uphold it, and fight to keep it true, to the stated goals of the people. FREEDOM is not perfection; FREEDOM IS EQUALITY, NOT conformity beyond necessary limits! James F. Osterbur.

TO THE SUPREME COURT

I,Y., do submit these papers as a Afair and accurate statement of the facts@. IF you should find the statements inappropriate to the words Awithout argument or comment@ I do pray for opportunity to correct! My personal view, Afair and accurate are sustained@ and of greater cause than, Awithout argument or comment@ as it may preclude a complete understanding! JUSTICE without understanding is not justice, reprints of law apply but will define further if necessary.

SUPREME COURT 9/15/93

I,Y., having considered the matter carefully do state: it is my desire to obtain justice. I am defending myself, and have encountered an extremely unfriendly court system, as it applies to JUSTICE FOR ALL. It is my decision at this time, to call for justice, by the honest method of informing the court to the best of my ability, as to this case, and expecting justice. As has been presented.

SUPPORTING LAW

Illinois constitution from the preamble 1970

3. supreme law, constitution constitution is supreme and whatever the purpose of people in placing restriction upon legislation, it must be obeyed; any legislative action contrary to constitution is unconstitutional and voidYY.statutes and rules of court cannot confer constitutional rights [people v. wenger 1976 1 Ill dec. 306] ..the constitution is the supreme law, and every citizen bound to obey it, and every court is bound to enforce its provisions, leaving court no discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision according to his judgment as to its wisdom or whether public good will be subserved by disregarding itY..

4. purpose, constitution the purpose of constitutional provisions is to protect every citizen in his personal and property rights against the arbitrary action of any person or authorityY..

5. grant or limitation, constitution constitution is not grant of but a limitation on legislative power, which otherwise extends to every subject within scope of civil government

CONSTITUTION OF 1970 ART. 1 & 2

6. IN GENERAL, DUE PROCESS

Adue process@ is an orderly proceeding wherein a person is served with notice, actual or constructive, and has an opportunity to be heard and to enforce and protect his rights before a court having power to hear and determine the caseYY..conforming to fundamental rules of right and affecting all persons alike, is due process of lawY.

7. object of due process clauses is to preserve personal and property rights of persons against arbitrary action of public officialsY.
8. Essential elements of due process of law are notice and the opportunity to be heard or to defendY.
9. In order to constitute Adue process of law@ within meaning of state and federal constitutions, it is necessary that orderly proceeding according to established rules which do not violate fundamental rights should be observed. But where person affected has due and sufficient notice and an adequate opportunity to present his defense, the constitutional requirements of due process are metY.

108. A fair trial under due process of law requires an impartial judge free from personal conviction as to guilt or innocence of the accusedY

10. as applied to actions of state agency upon individual, illinois due process clause guarantees same rights as does due process clause of fourteenth amendmentY..life, liberty, and property, within constitutional provision of deprivation without due process, includes every personal, political and civil right, including that to labor, contract, or acquire propertyY..
11. test of due process, due process under substantive due process, statute is unconstitutional if it impermissibly restricts persons= life, liberty or property interestY.

JUDICIARY 705 ILCS 5/6 OATH OF OFFICE

I do solemnly swear ( or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of judge of the supreme court of the state of Illinois, according to the best of my ability.

APPELLATE DISMISSAL 8/26/93

Aappellant ruled to show cause, on or before 9/2/93, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file brief as required by rules 342 and 343. Failure to comply with these rules will result in dismissal of appeal@.

# 4-93-0441 in the appellate court ORDER

In response to a rule entered YY.document does not comply with supreme court rules 341 through 344 concerning form and content of briefs, the manner of filing and the number of copies to be provided Y..fails to provide any citationsYY..or a coherent factual backgroundY..violates ..rule 341 (e) (7). Y.in view of substantial failure of appellant to comply with supreme court rules concerning form and contentYYDISMISSED for failure to comply with supreme court rules.

Transcript of trial 92- s- 2991

To the court 10/4/93 case 92-s-2991 is still proceeding as state supreme court case #76128 plaintiff has received notice of fillings citation is hereby contested notification is required if the defendant must or need not appear of Oct 13. James F. Osterbur