STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
DATE 10/5/93
RE: OSTERBUR
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
TRIAL #92-C-1222
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
(this is a typed version of the original hand written copy, and should not be considered a "perfect copy", but as close as necessary)
SUMMARY STATEMENT
This is expected to be a landmark case and as such: there are no distinct citations available.
THE PRIMARY POINTS ARGUED:
1. Does a monopoly exist in medicine, over the patient.
Authority landmark case pages
2. Does failure to arbitrate constitute price fixing within a contract signed under DURESS?
Authority landmark case pages
3. Does the patient defined by medical emergency, DESERVE to be considered EQUAL in billing disputes.
Authority BEYOND DOUBT page
4. Is section 2-622 a violation of DUE PROCESS?
Authority fourteenth amendment page
5. THE PUBLIC CITIZEN CAN DEMAND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, be adhered to.
Authority the American FREEDOM page
6. The public at large deserves representation in a court proceeding.
Authority fourteenth amendment
7. The public citizen deserves to be protected and informed; as a hostage, as a possible victim, as EQUAL TO LAW.
Authority the constitution (case 92-c-1222)
92-S-1561 Pre-emptive bench trial
The plaintiff sought throughout case 92-1561 to reach a FAIR billing with regard to emergency room treatment. Case 92-s-1561 being a small claims bench trial and amended trial concerned with a FAIR appraisal of patient services. 92-s-1561 brought to light, concerns of monopoly status of the hospital over the patient. 92-s-1561 amended and original were dismissed with prejudice DUE TO: "this is NOT the forum for deciding that complaint". page 9 line 20-24, and page 10. Transcript 92-s-1561 by Doncy L. Tracy CSR RPR champaign county courthouse, Urbana Il 61801.
James F. Osterbur Plaintiff V. Covenant Medical Center Decedent. James F. Osterbur pro se David Krchak attorney for Decedent. the honorable Ann A. Einhorn Judge.
Case 92-C-1222 has sought from the beginning to address the myriad of problems encountered and its public consequences, with the purpose of Equality and Fair play for ALL SIDES.
The proposed Amended 92-c-1222, as provided for inspection, has determined to address the LACK OF LAW as has been provided by the legislatures, and is intent upon identifying and clarifying and legally determining; RIGHT from WRONG as it applies to patient/hospital/doctor/nurse relations.
In such manner the DUTIES required of a public citizen as defined by the Bill of Rights and Constitution, WILL BE MET!
Jurisdiction is taken directly, from the Bill of Rights section 5 (Virginia adopted 6/12/1776) "That legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary...." (That being, this matter HAS entered the court system and must be dealt with accordingly).
Further Jurisdiction comes from the constitution article 3 section 2 paragraph 1 "the Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution...."!
{INFERRED: reference is to the lower court rulings, not here, no law or power to intervene}
Jurisdiction, BEYOND DOUBT, is established by the preamble to the constitution and has been established throughout case 92-c-1222. This case IS DISTINCTLY ABOUT: JUSTICE, domestic tranquillity, general welfare, a more perfect union, and securing the blessings of liberty.
It is re-affirmed as written within the prepared statement.
LAW
IS for the common good, NOT a mechanism, BUT a human reality, Dependent on MUTUAL respect FOR EACH PERSON.
it is further stated
JUSTICE, is a Result, NOT a Rule. The Rule applies knowledge, the man/woman applies understanding, and the DECISION is expected as WISDOM, tempered within the Reality; NO ONE IS PERFECT.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
DATE 10/1/93
RE: OSTERBUR, JIM
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
TRIAL #92-C-1222
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
THIS CASE #4-93-0847
INTRODUCTION
As described throughout this case, these pleadings have arisen out of a billing dispute with the decedent, Covenant Medical Center. The dispute initially involved, LESS than $1000.00 billed to the plaintiff and contested by the decedent as, "I BILLED THEREFORE, I deserve". The Plaintiff paid for justifiable and appropriate treatment in the amount of $1200.00 and is contesting further billing as, "I WAS GIVEN treatment NO ONE would consider Routine, professional, or adequate and DO DEMAND, A FAIR and impartial REVIEW, as preferable to legal proceedings"! FOR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, and me!
The small claims court was initially chose, BUT proved inadequate. Therefore case 92-c-1222 became a case intent upon change, for the PUBLIC as a whole!
Of the ISSUES brought forth within this case the greatest ARE: The medical profession HAS obtained a MONOPOLY over me/us!
AND
The FAILURE to mediate a bill which was chosen by DURESS, NOT desire, constitutes PRICE FIXING, sustained by the REALITY, "I/WE could NOT argue/NOR proceed within NORMAL BUSINESS practice, PRIOR to receiving said service, THEREFORE cause exists to DEMAND mediation, as this would be FAIR! The opportunity to confront, arbitrate and then resolve, IS the basis of a contract. IF NO CONTRACT exists, NO BILLING CAN RESULT!
{INFERRED: a contract signed under duress is neither legal or binding}
A bench trial, dismissed by the lack of LAW, NOT through LAW!
An amended trial is sought to provide the FOUNDATION, for what is HONEST AND FAIR AND RIGHT, that appropriate LAW IS DEFINED!
STATE OF ILLINOIS
APPELLATE COURT
FOURTH DISTRICT
DATE 10/4/93
RE: OSTERBUR, JIM
V.
COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
TRIAL #92-C-1222
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
THIS CASE #4-93-0847
BRIEF
On september 3, 1993 the formal proceeding specific to this case 92-c-1222 began AND was DISMISSED. This dismissal was allowed NOT because of LAW OR through LAW,
BUT
By the LACK OF LAW, as is evidenced within the transcript of proceedings, as prepared by, Nancy Sivertsen, page 10, lines 10-24 and page 11, lines 1-13!
Further, as stated by the Defense page 9, THE COURT: is asked, "DOES the court have the AUTHORITY to cause arbitration or mediation in a billing dispute"? This motion for dismissal, was designed so that a legitimate complaint would NOT be heard, THEREFORE the question is NOT based upon MERIT this question goes DIRECTLY, to the AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC LAW. IF the court has NO AUTHORITY over billing disputes among the PUBLIC, I DO demand to see the LAW and have it defined to me by the court!
A contradiction IS IDENTIFIED and definable by law within page 9, IF the court has NO AUTHORITY or OPPORTUNITY to be involved within a dispute between a corporate entity and a man, and the man clearly has NO further actions by which, EVEN a definition of the problem may be entered, THEN the corporate entity has achieved a CLEAR AND ABSOLUTE control over the man and may charge ANY PRICE it considers possible to recover or MORE. THIS IS A MONOPOLY over the INDIVIDUAL!
Page 9, further contends line 11 & 12, "there's NO contract here...." Meaning to me the patient/plaintiff, "I have NO further legal recourse BECAUSE the decedent FAILED, "TO GIVE" me any. THIS TOO clearly defines a monopoly exists between the patient and the decedent. HOW IS IT, that the decedent MAY CHOOSE, to give or NOT give LEGAL RIGHTS to me? IF I have NO choice, IF the will NOT/CAN NOT be involved, then the decedent has indeed achieved a MONOPOLY OVER ME!
Page 9, lines 13-15 IS FALSE as defined within the proper context page 13, lines 18-20. It cannot be construed IN ANY FORM that a claim has NOT been make. NOR can it be legally asserted that attempts to collect money are LESS; than this plaintiffs RIGHT to seek arbitration or mediation.
Page 9, lines 1-7 is an attempt by the decedent to hide behind an UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Section 2-622 has been defined within case 92-c-1222 (court documents) AS CONTRARY to the Bill of Rights, specifically section 11, and therefore distinctly VIOLATES MY RIGHT, as a public citizen!
Section 2-622 further indicates the EXTENT to which the medical profession as a whole, HAS CONTROL over the patient (a MONOPOLY)! Page 9, lines 18-19 Clearly indicates the defendants position, as interpreted, "there's' NOTHING the court can do about it"!
This plaintiff adheres to the common defense of an American citizen, that those things FOUGHT FOR/DIED FOR, are greater than, decisions which are contrary to the Bill of Rights, sections 1,3,15 and the constitution (its intent to provide, JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND SAFETY)!
Page 10, lines 1-9 is an attempt to , BELITTLE, the plaintiffs' complaint/pleadings by saying "lines 3-4 page 10". I, the plaintiff DO testify, I entered an emergency room WITH HEART pains, and DO suggest, "IF Mr. Cornyn, had entered with the same pain and the same treatment, IT WOULD NOT BE, a small matter." Again, IF NO BILL or written agreement exists (No legally binding instrument) then I, the plaintiff DO NOT OWE any money and the decedent is HARASSING ME for donations, I do NOT wish to give! IS THIS NOT THE LAW!
Page 11, lines 23-24 and page 12 line 1, indicates a signature was obtained. Page 12 line 13-15 is its interpretation and line 22 its legal description. Page 13 lines 4-5, determine, "legally binding". As medical billing shall indicate $1200.00 was paid to covenant medical center and within the proper construction of such an agreement, as was made, ANY DISPUTE MUST BE resolved by mediation/arbitration BECAUSE, NO OTHER LEGAL AGREEMENT EXISTS!
Page 13 lines 16-24, CANNOT be considered within the context of this motion trial, as it shall/could limit the plaintiffs legal recourse UPON later being sued over this matter by covenant medical center, HAS NOT, doesn't mean WOULD NOT!
Page 14 and 15 Clearly define the LACK OF LAW, as well as page 10 lines 10-22, and page 11 lines 1-13, the lack of specific legislation which DISTINCTLY applies to the TRUE and SERIOUS issues, brought to the court, through this case MUST BE ADDRESSED.
IT IS TRUE, that whenever specific laws cannot be found, THEN the broader issues which DO FALL WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES ARE THE LAW!
IT IS ALSO TRUE, whenever a specific lessor LAW is found contrary to constitutional issues; THAT LAW must be abolished! Therefore the precedents which apply; BEGIN at the constitution and Bill of Rights.
Of particular interest: "article 3, section 2, paragraph 1 of the constitution of the United States; The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution....."!
The constitution and its PURPOSE are ESTABLISHED WITHIN ITS PREAMBLE: "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."
As applied to this particular case, the plaintiff MUST BECOME the common public citizen and the decedent MUST therefore BECOME the medical industry!
The cognizable cause of action for this statement IS: "a case INTENT UPON life in human terms, NOT medical terms, NOT greed or charity, RATHER TRUTH, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY!" Let it be further recognized, the RELIEF SOUGHT IS: FAIR TRADE PRACTICE, EQUALITY, MONOPOLY CONTROLLED AND/OR ERASED where possible, SPECIFIC DEFINITION whereby legislature in assembly shall be enlightened by JUSTICE and produce INFORMED FAIR AND EQUITABLE LAW!
THE RIGHT OF COUNSEL exists within these statements which enlarge this case to the PUBLIC at large, and to the medical industry as a whole.
The cause of action and relief sought clearly define PUBLIC CAUSE FOR: promoting the general welfare, insuring domestic tranquillity, establishing justice, and shall deal SPECIFICALLY with issues involving the "common defense".
According to the fourteenth amendment DUE PROCESS MUST BE provided, therefore the RIGHT OF COUNSEL IS CLEAR, that the PUBLIC MUST BE represented by counsel as may be "appointed by the court", that the citizenry are adequately defended according to LAW! Those issues which clearly are PUBLIC, personal controversy belong to this plaintiff! IF the issues arise.
These RIGHTS, the PUBLIC definitions, and the desire for JUSTICE ARE The constitution amendment as written within the "Virginia" Bill of Rights, adopted june 12, 1776 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!
This case CANNOT be construed as political BECAUSE, "IT HAS ENTERED THE COURT SYSTEM, AND MUST BE DEALT WITH, according to the LAW OF THE LAND, and within the concepts and realities brought about through this case.
It IS TRUE, THE LAW OF THE LAND IS, what the vast majority of people, THOSE WHO FIGHT AND DIE TO PROTECT IT, shall allow!
The courts, and legislatures, and governments as declared throughout the constitution ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS (those who carry out the wishes of the public).
These matters are literally about life, death, and property and CANNOT be brushed aside.
James F. Osterbur