NOTICE OF AN APPEAL

FILED MAY 20, 1993

COLE V. OSTERBUR

CHAMPAIGN COUNTY

WHEREAS; A judgement has been filed against the defendant, Jim Osterbur, that shall be shown herein to be IMPROPER, BIASED, AND SLANDEROUS, to said cause.

Beginning with the summons filed Oct 2, 1992: comes the claim for warranty evaluation, a summons follows, Nov. 9, 1992. SPECIFICALLY there is NO MENTION of, "by factual statement" that, I, Jim Osterbur the defendant IS/WOULD BE accused of fraud by the plaintiff. IN FACT, said plaintiff NEVER accused myself, the defendant, at any time by direct statement of fraud. It will be later brought up.

Returning to the evidenced: page 6 line 3-10 the car was purchased in march of 1991 OVER 18 MONTHS prior to her filing a complaint in oct of 1992. Upon ATTEMPTING questioning that applies to WARRANTY pages 45 & 46 clearly define what I believe to be BIASED proceedings.

The plaintiff testifies page 10 line 6 and then line 8. She waited over 1 year after the decision to take me, the defendant, to court has been made line 18. The question remains WHY?

Plaintiff gives testimony regarding HER DECISION to inflict damage to the motor (DAMAGED: in such a way and manner that is EXCLUDED IN ALL NEW CAR WARRANTIES) QUOTE: Engine damage from running your engine without coolant isn't covered by your warranty: 1992 GM corporation.

Testimony begins pg 15 line 10! SPECIFIC to this testimony is, the question and answer, pg 16, lines 19-22! And pg 16 lines 1 & 2!

Testimony continues pg 17 lines 4-14 discredits plaintiffs selection of mechanical advice.

Testimony pg 17 lines 13-24 CLEARLY SHOW the motor specifically the cylinder walls were in "like new" condition. Further testimony such as pg 52, lines 8-24, pg 53, lines 1-2 are hereby declared NULL AND VOID as they describe conditions that appear over 1YEAR (pg 10 line 6, then pg 51 line 8) LATER!

Issues that affected "my decision" NOT to call the machinist to give testimony pg 62 line 7-11 are MONEY. To request travel, time, failure to be at his work, would cost money! Pg 19 lines 5-9 clearly indicates, REIMBURSEMENT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. Pg 62 lines 12-14 simply acknowledge close family, as "seen by others" as NOT being IMPARTIAL.

FURTHER: THE LAW IS CLEAR regarding warranty issues. WARRANTY as defined by GM on rebuilt motors (their rebuilt motors) pg 56, line 24 is 12 months, or 12,000 miles whichever comes first. THIS ALONE according to LAW (in my opinion) was enough to cause DISMISSAL of this case before trial occurred.

The trial was granted WITHOUT a motion for dismissal BECAUSE pg 21 line 15-18 indicates a weapon, specifically the threat of a weapon, coupled with an angry person pg20 line 9-10 deserves to be incriminated in court, should foul play occur after a judgement against the plaintiff. SIMPLE EVIDENCE, should it be needed.

Evidence continued: pg 64-67 define the defendants explanation of the events which lead to, offering the plaintiff $300.00 for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of finding someone else, BY RELIEVING ANY/ALL obligation which could be attributed to me, as described by pg 67 lines 1-5, and substantiates pg 21 lines 8-9. Throughout the proceeding there can be NO DOUBT as to what the $300.00 was for, NOR that it was accepted within the CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE of an agreement regarding motor replacement. Testimony pg 23, line 2-5, concur this was the agreement!

BEYOND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS: after paying $300.00 to alleviate my obligations WITHOUT the proper and REASONABLE opportunity to evaluate the motor, DUE entirely to the threatening manner of Richard Adair pg 29 line 9. I returned to again evaluate the car, the second time Ms Cole called, pg 67 line 11. At this time a proper evaluation was made AFTER she informed me SHE had overheated the motor. The motor was fixed at NO CHARGE except $50.00 in parts pg 17, line 13-14. Pg 31 line 24 and pg 32 line 1-2 state the prior mechanical description pg 17 lines 6-7 was completely erroneous.

Insofar as the issues regarding the transmission and brakes and CV joints are concerned, these things were the responsibility of the owner to divulge correctly. The information I, Jim Osterbur passed along was given to me by the owner's dad, Retired Bishop Ehme Osterbur, and I had NO reason to discount that information. Pg 59 does prove, the work was done, I am unaware of specifics involving the word "recently". Pg 61 line 7-16 describe in part how the car was delivered to me. It was "too good a car to just throw away, the transmission was recently rebuilt, and the brakes and the cV joints were replaced, DO anything you wish with the car". I, elected to rebuild the motor and charged Ms Cole accordingly. The price is higher than a "autozone" motor because more work was done to it. I do at this time point out, the first and only reference to transmission or brake mileage appears pg 59 line 21. Ms Cole is given the opportunity to ask questions pg 60 line 6 AND DECLINES pg 60 line 8. I the defendant did willfully introduce the problem with mileage that arose regarding the transmission and brakes, FULLY EXPECTING the judge could and would add/hear the difference. IT WAS NOT AN OVERSIGHT on my part, RATHER upon hearing a CHANGE in the story given me and desiring truth and fair play, I, EXPECTED to pay a REASONABLE sum, because of the 20,000 mile difference. To Ms Cole as what ,I, had told her was apparently incorrect! pg 61 lines 8-15

IRREGARDLESS of the actual mileage, I, had personally inspected the car before and after working on the motor to assure myself the transmission and brakes, etc were sound, THEY WERE. AFTER fixing the head gasket I test drove the car to assure myself the motor, transmission, and brakes were in good working order, THEY WERE!

The beginning of problems was a cut in a NEW radiator hose pg 63 line 3 and pg 68 line 15-18.

PROOF the motor was rebuilt was clearly shown to the plaintiff pg 69 line 5-15 and again pg 17 line 18-22

PROOF: the transmission and brakes were rebuilt was provided pg 59 line 22-24

PROOF of the EXCLUSION OF WARRANTY RIGHTS was defined by the dates provided by Ms Cole (bought March 91, summons appear October 92) a full 18 months after the car was purchased.

PROOF A willingness existed on the part of the defendant to provide assistance to the plaintiff upon being notified pg 20 line 9-18 NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE.

PROOF the motor was overheated by the plaintiff pg 15 line 10-24 and pg 16 line 1-22

PROOF not every mechanics evaluation is correct pg 17 line 9-22

PROOF the desire to control the defendant existed, pg 30 line 4-8

PROOF the defendants mechanical abilities exceeded that of the mechanics computerized list pg 31 line 24 pg 24 & pg 32 lin 1-2 AS SEEN WITHIN testimony pg 17 lines 3-22.

PROOF greed was NOT involved in the sale of this car pg 14 line 2-8.

PROOF the plaintiff made her own decision and had plenty of opportunity to seek her boyfriends advice or others pg 13 line 14-24.

PROOF the plaintiff (her boyfriend) made NO attempt to deal respectfully with the with the defendant pg 20, lines 14-24 and pg 21 lines 1-2

PROOF a transaction occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant SPECIFICALLY about the motor pg 22 line 14-24 (line 24 clearly indicates the extent of the work, although a question raised, was answered pg 72 line 18-21).

PROOF the mechanics testimony IS IRRELEVANT pg 51 line 1-7 as it CLEARLY INDICATES inspection occurred 20 months AFTER the car was bought.

PROOF an agreement by their mechanic that MOTORS CAN BE DESTROYED EASILY pg 52 line 7-8 and SUBSTANTIATES the defendants claim to have rebuilt the motor pg 52 line 24 and pg 53 line 1. WHEN PROPERLY VIEWED within the plaintiffs own testimony pg 17 lines 19-22.

PROOF Nothing was hidden by the defendant pg 17 line 15-16

PROOF warranty examination was quashed by the judge long before testimony by my witness or myself pg 45 line 21-24 and pg 46 line 1-7.

EVIDENCE OF BIAS

Pg 19 line 21-24 and pg 20 line 1-3 "IF there's something about this incident that involves Mr. Adair, that you think is pertinent you may bring it out"! ATTEMPTS were make to solicit this testimony pg 19 line 10-16 pg 20 and pg 21 line 1-10

Direct testimony by the defendant: spelling out pg 21 for the judge indirect involvement by Mr. Adair, and later as a Direct negotiator pg 30 line 4-8

Pg 21 line 21-24 and pg 22 line 1-12 EVERY EFFORT to portray the incident as confrontational and THEREBY a direct result of a preset agenda, described by Mr. Adair pg 30 line 6-7 JUDGE QUASHES pg 21 line 20-24 and pg 22 lines 1-12.

Defendant DECLARES: ALL reasonable efforts were made to obtain a FAIR AND SATISFACTORY agreement pg 21, line 11-12.

Judge IGNORES: relevant testimony regarding stated efforts to obtain a fair and satisfactory agreement (above) pg 21 line 21-24.

Judge declares: pg 22 line 8-11 relevant testimony given pg 22 lines 15-24 and pg 23 line 1-13

Relevant testimony DENIED: pg 21 line 21-24 and pg 22 lines 1-12 attempts were being directed toward the inclusion of motive, as to the suspected tampering pg 71 line 1-2.

Denial of testimony pg 44 lines 4-6 PERTINENT within the context of motive/tampering and so forth. Denied by judge pg 44 line 14-24 & pg 45 line 1-3

DEFENDANT ASKS for a definition pg 46 lines 4-5

JUDGE ENTERS FIRST JUDGEMENT in case against defendant. pg 46 line 6-7

Evidence of IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY; pg 51 line 8 DUE TO INSPECTION OCCURRING 20 MONTHS after the sale. SUBSTANTIATION of irrelevant testimony pg 56 line 22-24.

Testimony of closure by defendant pg 67 line 1-6. Testimony of Evidence to tampering pg 68 line 15-22.

PROVEN testimony as to the condition of the cylinder walls by defendant pg 69 line 6-16 SUBSTANTIATED by the plaintiff pg 17 lines 13-22 as of this date pg 10 line 6-7

TESTIMONY regarding further tampering pg 69 lines 17-24

Defendants summation pg 70 line 4-10

Testimony Every effort was made to produce a proper repair for the plaintiff in her presence pg 70 line 11-23

The courts decision: pg 73 line 13-20

It was the written opinion of the court that the motor could be considered as evidence 20 months after purchase, to its inspection date.

It is the defendants CLAIM: 20 MONTHS AFTER THE FACT, IS TOO LONG; THEREFORE testimony by the mechanic in question MUST BE STRICKEN!

It is a LEGAL FACT: WARRANTIES of any kind DO have expiration dates! THEREFORE the defendant DOES ASSERT IT WAS UNNECESSARY to incur expense or supine witnesses to testify to/against ILLEGAL testimony. Rather receipts and affidavits CLEARLY WERE ENOUGH!

Courts decision pg 74

The issue of FRAUD was NEVER brought up during the trial. The defendants ASSERTS: I was never accused by the plaintiff!

Courts decision pg 74 line 10-11

Initial damages were dealt with during trial pg line 10-24 & pg 16 line 1-22

Courts decision pg 74 line 18-20

The term new motor is interchangeable within the context of a 9 year old car with a complete rebuild defendants decryption pg 71 line 18-24 & line 72 line 1-2

Courts decision: pg 75 line 14-22

The defendant made NO false statements at any time! PROOF is in the voluntary and immediate and public statements that relate to the statements in question pg 59 and 60 and 61. The defendant ASSERTS he did the BEST he could with the information at his disposal and sought to voluntarily make amends for misinformation from others! Be it known: the defendants cousin Danny Osterbur was called on at least 2 occasions requesting any/all receipts regarding said work HOWEVER Danny Osterbur was unable to produce the receipts until called to court DUE to a change of residence which resulted in lost book-keeping.

Courts decision relies heavily on testimony of a mechanic who had NOT inspected the car prior to 20 months after purchase was made! pg 76 line 1-8.

Courts decision pg 76 line 9-21 ALL testimony directed OR GIVEN by the defendant IS DISREGARDED.

Docket entry: JUDGE ALLOWS 20 MONTHS FREE USE AND ABUSE of said vehicle by the plaintiff.

Motion denied pg 3 line 13-15 without even reading the motion.

SUMMARY BY DEFENDANT

Evidence exists regarding possible motive involved with tampering. Evidence was quashed by judge prior to it becoming testimony. Hard evidence as well as mileage MAY YET exist within the mechanical components of said car. JUDGE REFUSED to hand over a car which he had required the defendant to repurchase. A car which may hold ALL the evidence necessary to prove the defendant CORRECT BEYOND ANY DOUBT!

Judge defends actions by saying "motion trial, pg 3, line 24 and pg 4 line 1-5"

BECAUSE of the length of time the car was in the possession of the plaintiff the Defendant claims: there was NEVER a reason to believe it would be necessary to obtain further proof BEYOND: WARRANTY LIMITS (as established by New Car Dealerships)

Repayment as established by the motor agreement between plaintiff and defendant

WARRANTY EXCLUSION as established by New Car warranty guidelines (plaintiff overheating car, drives 15 miles further)

WHEREAS:

THE VERDICT RENDERED BY JUDGE HARRY E. CLEM

SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID!

by the defendant, James F. Osterbur

5/20/93