As provided under the 1st amendment, Redress of Grievances, of the United States Constitution. This REVIEW of champaign circuit court of Illinois, trial 02-L-126 IS a petition to the government "WE THE PEOPLE"! Therefore under the auspices of the 14th amendment "...no state shall make or enforce any law (rule or procedure), which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law (these cases of the trial of life, as presented, PROVE due process is held in contempt, by the court: we are captives of rules/ we are subjects of intolerable tyranny); nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (the legal stranglehold of the citizen litigant, by the subterfuge of purposes of power, control and greed in place of justice/ the subjugation of the process to the illicit and disgraceful commandeering of language uncommon to the people, prove ONLY power and not justice is the description most accurate to the court). In the attorneys final court statements, whereby the judge agrees, that simple and accurate testimony is not only unacceptable/ it is incomprehensible. The attorney states due to the lack of knowledge, given in the testimony, he cannot possibly make a defense because he cannot understand the complaint/ it isn't in the "courts language"/ the judge agrees. THIS IS FAILURE! Because the court is NOT separated from society/ it is NOT allowed its own language/ it is NOT allowed rules to govern laws, rather laws govern rules/ it is NOT allowed to assert justice is irrelevant, and fair play to pattern of fools. The court procedure reveals, tyranny because it has set itself apart from society, and provided rules and languages unfamiliar to society, and intends by the lawyers greed, to ransack and rape at will. The case in question is simple! No one need misunderstand/ the defense has NO legal or moral or ethical grounds, therefore he complains "the language isn't ours": and the court agrees. The question assembled is not about the judge/ in the poverty of the court system that is American, better is not expected. The reality to be tested is the BETRAYAL of the people/ wherein the court HAS sold us to the slavery of lawyers. Do I, not have to get a lawyer to be heard/ do I not have to pay for so simple a problem as this/ I do indeed, because GREED CONTROLS THE COURT/ and justice has been regulated by words and innuendo to "the whim of a judge, or no place at all". This judge defended me, by not giving the lawyer the power to steal from me/ therefore you will leave him alone. There are very MANY judges who would have provided anything the lawyer asked, and more. The court is asked about the "$87 dollars" because the language of the court is again NOT familiar to the majority of society, and if it was necessary, I wanted the words as plain as possible.
Therefore the court itself is taken to trial/ NOT by its permission, but by the constitution: wherein the true power of democracy IS ITS PEOPLE; whereby, the redress of grievances of the 1st amendment makes clear a fundamental authority of the people. wherein the 4th amendment illustrates the violation of individual rights & securities which shall not be violated: such as , the consequence of a mock trial (where rule & procedure & grammar ARE considered superior to law & justice by the court); the tyranny of a "foreign language, known only to the court" has entered in shame, as language is the only means to justice without a BRIBE. The invasion and fundamental plundering of the nation itself, is asserted by the belittling of the jury (by not accepting the language of a jury), and making them less than the judge, less than a judicial system, less than a secret society of codes & rules & excuses used to plunder, rape, & simply discard ANY who dare to seek justice, without their "lawyer BRIBE"! These are critical usurpations and they warrant investigation and dramatic change/ they do demand the 1st amendment redress of grievances/ & they command 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."
In support of the testimony, and as evidence against the court, the procedures and rules of the court as were used in hearing #02-L-126 Osterbur v. Howell, in the sixth circuit court of Champaign county IL will be used as initiating But not limited to.
In the purpose of an appeal against procedures & rules of the court that have successfully invaded, superseded, & removed justice from the courtroom, critical argument is provided as #02-L-126 law and argument/ filed August 9,2002. IN REVIEW:
1. Throughout the long & VEXATIOUS slobbering dribble used by the attorney, neither the concept, nor the words, nor the intent of justice is apparent in any of the lawyers "MOST mundane & frivolous" attempt at convincing the court that justice doesn't matter/ only procedures and rules of the court do!
2. The harassment of the plaintiff by the intentional lack of justice can only be supported in the simple words; "NO intent exists to support honesty, to claim in support of the people & society, or to defend against the plain english of a cause of action". The lawyer claims "I can't understand"/ in which case he commits FRAUD before the court, because a jury would!
3. In court, even the definition of justice is corrupt beyond recognition: "Barron's law Dictionary; synonymous with judge". Therefore "the whim of a judge or the court rule, of a futile & insignificant technical allegation constitutes a factually sufficient means of dismissal without ANY cause of action resembling law/ the intent of law/ constitutional demand or guarantee/ or justice and inherent right. The legal society purposefully & ultimately terrorizes the non-lawyer/ citizen through fundamental distortion & trier's of useless disclaimers for the sole purpose of fatiguing them. The DISHONOR of an absolute discrimination & prejudice of the court, against the non-lawyer, makes us all dependent upon the BLACKMAIL of a law degree or NO justice for the majority. I do not complain of this judge, RATHER I complain of this process/ by which every citizen is "whipped into submission, by the slavery of judicial immunities/ the power to collect excessive & notorious fees, by lawyers/ and the outright denial of merits that ANY JURY would find sufficient & clear. Financial slavery is slavery like any other/ the whip and chains merely the demand to survive or die, as these villains steal the substance from so much work, that nothing is left but the tragedy of lives and families in ruin. And for what: "so that greed and corruption can have more to throw in the garbage dump, in front of the masses."
4. The elements of tyranny are ALL present: the guarantees of the constitution are not worth complaining about to the court, as it has NO ears for such things/ the law is insufficient to a procedural rule or language claim/ The expectation to be heard in a courtroom is littered with traps, formally presented as facts, which bear NO PURPOSE as to the truth or justice & the honor of a court/ the court DEMANDS; "obey me & my rules": I/ we the people of the USA demand "obey the constitution and proceed in justice": the court is reviewed herein and throughout all the cases of the "trial of life" and as many as may be added; as deficient on all counts/ the abusive relationship of the court to a non-lawyer wherein the citizen seeks justice & the court can and many times DOES quash the citizen with lawyer fees that not only demonstrate tyranny; but they are in many cases CRUEL. [if the judge had ruled against me/ thousands of dollars would be lost, not as a honest participation in support of justice/ but as a reality of power and control, and the whim of a judge]. The defense makes no mention of fundamental justice, rather he says "this case is a perfect example of the reason for supreme court rule 137" / therefore it makes a perfect test case, for the purposes of this trial. The lawyer explains: the use of language & argument as would be common & sufficient in ANY jury courtroom, is in his words "vexatious, harassing, and abusive" and should be cause to "charge the plaintiff money/ because [in simple terms] the plaintiff is not a lawyer": many judges agree with this lawyer, and from my own experience in the courtrooms of america "it can be said many people have suffered because of it."
5. As you look through the lawyer arguments one thing is abundantly clear, "the constitution, doesn't matter". NOTHING presented from the lawyer is about honor, duty, dignity, inherent or guaranteed rights/ NOTHING is even about law; instead every case presented as proof, is about the "whim of a judge or a rule of the court, superseding the law."
6. The cost of actions such as these, the DISGRACE of such trivia conducting spurious intrusions into the lives of honorable people, demands change. The social debauchery of a courtroom where, in many cases, the citizen is "raped" by the court or facilitated by the court to allow the lawyer to "RAPE", ALL support the DISTRESS of a society searching for RESPECT! And the reality, that the sanctuary of a courtroom is held in contempt by the legal profession. They are lawyers no more, they are extortionists and simple BANDITS, thieving from the least able to defend themselves, because money is the purpose of the courtroom, and dignity is assigned to the garbage dump.
7. Respect is the critical action, that supports dignity, & conceives HONOR, simply because I/ we deserve it. The court DID prove some respect in this case/ identifying the truth, "that respect is up to the judge"! A FACT which cannot stand, because it excludes others, and makes society vulnerable, to the whim of a judge . Power is corruption, therefore the public, police, & lawyers who work before the judge/ need to be able to throw out "a bad judge".
8. A law library with more than "one million words", exists to confuse & contort, & disgrace the cause of society: because so many words contain VERY many excuses. "To support and defend its rights, its virtue, and its fundamental truths, the law MUST be known by the citizens, therefore the fewest words possible are required! The rights which BELONG to the people, as their guarantee in the court/ MUST therefore be completely known by the people themselves, memorized and clearly stated. These MUST be decided, by vote; and the laws & the issues themselves, which are the descriptions of our lives and our world, and our nation MUST BE decided by vote as well. NO more voting for someone to vote for me, on the MAJOR issues of our time/ WE WILL DO IT NOW!
9. Justice means: that we are EQUAL, by the merit of our common humanity, therefore the respect granted to one SHALL be equal to the respect granted the other. NO situation exists wherein the fundamental rights of one exceeds the other/ instead with HONOR & DIGNITY, EVERY person, shall be treated FAIRLY! NO person shall use language, or the lack of technical expertise, as an injury or attack against the other. Justice & fair play DEMANDS an Ernest attempt to assess & understand the facts as BEST the participants can display them, using technical advise only to disrupt and defend the purpose of justice, which is: To intervene where necessary, to accomplish the fundamental truth of society/ that the weak MUST have an equal opportunity in life, with the powerful interests; the physical bully, & the "snake in the grass". EQUAL means: the time & efforts of my life, ARE NOT inferior to yours;"until such time as the balance of your actions demands change, because of pain & destruction you have chosen to inflict.
10. By the method of equality, as a judge once said to me, "want justice, get a lawyer"! I now return to the court, in the presence of the people, as: "Want to remain a judge, GET JUSTICE"!!!!!!
The penalty sought is removal of the "immunity clause" of article 3 of the constitution: "from the tragedy of embezzlement by the United States supreme court [as it has used the clause to assume NO responsibility for the actions of a judge, A FACT that does NOT exist in the constitution]." TO, the HONEST TRUTH of its purpose; to hold no judge guilty for "truth, honesty, honor, respect, & the integrity of the best he or she can do"! This is as it was meant to be and thereby demands of these judges how it came to be, that so completely ERRANT an interpretation could be devised and supported by them. Truth says: this was NO accident/ but merely the intent, and drive toward absolute power, without responsibility. The consequence of an improper response is "From now on, the people will decide the interpretation, where an interpretation is necessary, and the court will listen and respond respectfully or be dismissed."
Those judges who sink into decay & disrepute, those judges who contribute to "mafia-like" control of the courtroom/ those judges who HAVE FAILED, in the eyes of the citizens they serve; "Shall indeed be held accountable for every action & responsibility they caused, for every wrong they did deliberately create both financially & with imprisonment/ they are not "god", they are criminals and deserve to be treated accordingly.
The penalty sought is also a wage & price reduction, and then freeze for the next 25 years in ALL legal professional matters/ wherein the legal profession has been found as a corrupting influence upon society, in all matters involving justice/ and this is their penalty. The people will decide if you should earn an equal amount to the average tax payer/ or not.
This appeal of trial 02-L-126 "Is in essence, the child of the trial of life"/ finding its place not by the common methods of judicial process, but entering the court as a witness against the court, and then as a trial of the court. This is then the culmination of the trial of life, as a completed redress of grievances, according to the 1st amendment. This trial then becomes a participant in society through the actions of the trial of life, which is distinctly, the creator of this possibility. This appeal/ this final destination of the trial of life, DOES EXIST, "As the moments FREEDOM CHOSE, & THE LIBERTY THE PEOPLE ACHIEVED".
WE THE PEOPLE,
ARE AMERICA, AND WE DECIDE!
REVIEW BEGINS AS:
This is the final written response of case 02-L-126 from the defendants lawyer/ it purports to be the issuance of a legal cause to demand money from the plaintiff/ FAILING completely in the foundations of a defense for Howell, the attorney seeks to maliciously attack by the methods of rules, procedures, and old cases. The court rejects his claim, however it is a fair appraisal of common courtroom procedures where one of the litigants is a non-lawyer.
I the plaintiff, at the courtroom hearing to determine if a valid complaint had been raised, worthy of a trial: made only one statement, quote "I have said enough". The purpose of the my statement is a lesson/ NOTHING else is required of me, or necessary by me; no statement, no oath, no affirmation, NOTHING! Therefore the excuses that shall be raised in review of the Danville case of Osterbur v. Selimi: "in this trial of life" regarding my presence at a similar motion trial, ARE MUTE/ there is NO purpose in my presence there, just as there was no real purpose in my presence here/ in the danville case,"I had said enough", if the judge couldn't understand, it is because the judge FAILED", and it is because the judge was UNWORTHY of his position, and a blight upon the respect absolutely necessary within a courtroom of any society.
The rebuttal of defendants: "response to plaintiff's reply memorandum" is as follows [because this is a review of proceedings/ it is set out differently, in type./ first the defendants statement & then my response; each in different script]
NOW COMES the defendant J. BARRY HOWELL, DDS (the defendant), by his attorneys, Webber & Thies PC, and for his response to plaintiffs reply memorandum states as follows:
1. The plaintiff continues to fail to provide any recognizable cause of action or any legal support for any argument that he presents. He does not cite any case, statue or rule in support of his assertions but instead continually refers to "justice". Instead of providing a memorandum of law, as requested by the court, the plaintiff has submitted a "memorandum of reality". This is further evidence that there is no legal basis for this suit, but that the plaintiff's purpose in filing his complaint is to harass the defendant and to abuse the judicial process.
IN REVIEW the use of language presents an assertion of difference between the language of the land, & the language of the court! (Simply the court cannot understand the people, they speak a "foreign language"). The lawyer states: "he can recognize (means to identify and describe a particular action or thing) NO cause of action for the court (means, no relationship exists between the law, in strict interpretation, & the contractual and justice matters or fact presented/ "he doesn't have a clue, what I am telling the court") OR any legal support for any argument he presents (means the lawyer rejects the assertion that the court knows the laws, that the court took an oath to affirm & support the law, & the constitution as it describes the inherent or guaranteed rights of a citizen/ "or more simply the court is as dumb as a box of rocks, and cannot understand anything unless I shove it in the judges face"). This assertion is meant to belittle the citizen making a case for him or herself/ the purpose being simply, "to bully the citizen into spending the money for a lawyer, irregardless of how small the case/ who has time for this"? This is a constant in the court, thereby the rights and reasons of justice HAVE LONG AGO, simply been flushed down the sewer/ leaving us with the arrogant refuse of a court in disgrace. This is only one of the "common scourges/ tools of the day" used by the legal profession in every court, making extortion (you MUST pay the lawyer), making blackmail (If you don't pay the lawyer/ then collusion & protectionism will "get you, in most cases", to prove they hold the power: pay up one way or the other). This is discrimination/ discrimination means BIAS, or PREJUDICE, OR SIMPLY UNEQUAL TREATMENT exists: take a look, while every jury in the land, uses the language of the land (how could they not), while every jury could easily understand EVERY concept presented in this MOST simple of all judicial inquires "the lawyer" insists he cannot understand. The lawyer insists the court must NOT understand, because the secret codes of the secret society of lawyers & judges have not been met, & the court capitulates on this point "because the judge is tired of a fight which cannot be won inside the secret society, the terrorists are in control". The lawyer next complains of past court cases, not submitted as evidence in support of the plaintiffs words: AGAIN this is the most simple of all types of judicial cases/ it is clear, this case needs NO support/ a jury would not require 5minutes to decide what actually happened by the testimony of the plaintiff, & it is unlikely a single juror would fail to agree/ even the lawyer for the defense agrees, and states so, "as he searched and found NO cause, which could be defended/ therefore he went searching in the past for ANYTHING that could be used." This is an admission of fact, by the defense lawyer/ that the plaintiffs case is indeed complete & without fault." The lawyer asserts that reality has NO BASIS in a legal trial/ this does not even deserve comment. The lawyer asserts "he knows, that I am lying/ when I submit , this is a duty to me". The lawyer asserts "he knows, that instead of justice, my purpose is to harass/ when it is the defendant who make EVERY decision which caused this countersuit to occur/ Howell harasses me! His lawyer is now harassing me by "looking beyond the case & submitting excuses". The lawyer asserts "that I have abused the judicial process; by NOT accepting the "swindlers billing". To each count I reply: the innuendo, the suppositions, the outright lies of the lawyer ARE VERY consistent with my experience in most courtrooms. Therefore as practiced by ALL, then either the "law university, or the court system itself" teaches filth and disease, to the poor student who expects justice. These "teachers" are then simply a PLAGUE, which has spread through "MAFIA-LIKE controls" to every corner of the nation: "how did that happen"? ONLY the U.S. supreme court can be held responsible for this!
2.The only attempt that the plaintiff makes at providing any form of legal justification for his claims is a statement that he is making a "due process" claim under the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. (reply, 2) This claim is completely improper because this dispute is between private parties. The 14th amendment applies only to state action and provides "no shield against merely private conduct". Shelley v. Kraemer, 334, U.S. 1, 13 (1948); Moose lodge no. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163 (1972); Williams v. Nagel, 162 ILL. 2d 542, 548 (1994). "[I]n order to establish a violation of constitutional rights [under the fourteenth amendment], a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct complained of is conduct by the state rather than conduct of private parties". Williams, 162 ILL 2d at 548. The plaintiff does not complain of any conduct by the state, but only that of a private party. This claim is clearly not grounded in fact and is not warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, but is merely used by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendant and waste the court's time.
IN REVIEW; The lawyer asserts a claim for due process under the 14th amendment is in error. He further sates the 14th amendment applies ONLY to state action and does NOT extend to the citizen of the United States at all. The lawyer claims harassment again because he views the 14th amendment as insolvent against the claim of a right to proceed to jury trial.
In response: section 1 of the 14th amendment states clearly "NO state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"!
While the lawyer "sees state", I do demand, the command of the 14th amendment IS to the state instead: YOU shall not abridge (the use of court languages and not common language IS a barrier erected by the legal profession, to clearly & purposely restrict the citizen from the court, and thereby strip away the RIGHT OF JUSTICE to participate in your own defense). In so doing they have intended as a state run and controlled monopoly, a court system which has intended to and carried out "with murderous intent"to corrupt and destroy any personal involvement in the processes of the courtroom/ they have destroyed with rules and procedures and the blackmail of lawyer payments the very purpose of the court to defend and protect "the common citizen and the nation". Who is left, but lawyers: They have sold us, by TREASON, to "the people who want to enslave us/ with their demands for money"! The constitution put forth the courtroom for justice for the people/ WHERE is the justice? This is a direct violation of the command of the 14th amendment/ and this case translates justice within the rights promised to the nation, of which due process without restriction is a right, for EACH MAN WOMAN AND CHILD! Prove me wrong! A guaranteed right to proceed in safety and security through the courtroom, protected by justice, and informed by right: which means fair play.
The lawyer states: "that I do not complain of this reality in the court/ the case would then be a federal, by jurisdiction, trial. The reality & the transgression must occur; the judge excused without sanctions, which excuses him as a person/ but not the court as a system: IF I were in the defendants shoes, I would face retribution for those actions, such as the lawyer used against me to harass and spit upon/ it is because I am not a lawyer, that this case was excused and only because this judge do not participate where many would have, and sided with the lawyer to cause me to pay: IRREGARDLESS of any right. Check the other cases. This case comes to review only in the trial of life/ because it illuminates the truth of the citizen and his or her courtroom: They the legal profession HAVE CONSPIRED, to control/ HAVE DECEIVED, saying this is necessary/ HAVE COMMITTED LARCENY, by stealing the inherent rights & guarantee of the nation as declared in the constitution, and HAVE THREATENED, by failures on every important matter, as shown in this trial of life. The lawyer & the court were forewarned through the certainty issued in application of the appeals process / when tied to the 14th amendment/ as was declared throughout the written process; "the direction this would take was clear enough, to anyone schooled in law".
The equal protection demanded, the reality called DUE PROCESS, each assert & command Justice is the purpose of the 14th amendment & it is justice on an individual level, NOT an establishment of a defense against the individual, but a command of protection by ALL those who are under the influence & direction of the constitution of the United States, certainly the court system, and EVERY public official, as well as, every person. This lawyer harasses me, & wastes my time.
3. The plaintiff continues to use an improper form in drafting his documents, even after it has been called to his attention on numerous occasions. He continues to disregard any procedural rules of the court and any rules of grammar, stating that "neither the court nor the defense attorney are provided pacifiers for the simple tears, "I can't understand". (reply 5). The plaintiff seems to want both the court and the defendant to read his mind in order to ascertain what action and what issues are to be litigated in this case. Rather than making any sort of attempt to follow the rules of the court, the plaintiff blatantly refuses to recognize the necessity for such rules and the court's power to impose them and by doing so, he prevents the court from preforming its duty to ascertain the issues to be decided in the case. He has chosen to file in the law division, purposely avoiding small claims court where the rules of pleading and procedure would be somewhat more relaxed. And by doing so, he has forced the defendant to spend an inordinate amount of time to carefully respond to each of his many broad allegations.
3. IN REVIEW; herein the lawyer begins his attempt to breech the demand for justice/ by purposely erecting an attempt to steal justice, by making the court serve his greed. I the plaintiff, STAND FIRM according to amendment 7 US constitution "the right of trial by jury"/ Amendment 4 "the right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches & seizures, shall not be violated..." THESE ARE PERSONAL GUARANTEES, AND MUST BE HELD BY THE COURT AS ABSOLUTE IN THEIR ASSERTIONS OF PROTECTION OF THE CITIZEN
A trial by jury means: If the jury understands, so MUST the court, the lawyers, & the litigants/ the legal process is completed, when the jury understands; it is then their decision. Therefore ALL statements to the court ARE SUPPORTED by the "juries right, the juries need, & the juries language" WHATSOEVER does not agree in the judicial process and stands in opposition to the jury requirements of language, is then a BASTARD rule or procedure of the court and it does not belong in the American system of justice/ (bill of rights section 4) wherein NO PERSON or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, NOT the judge, not the lawyer, & not the litigant. Rather (bill of rights, section 2; that all power is vested in, an consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them). The jury is the people/ the court is the servant and trustee/ the right to destroy the sanctity of fundamental justice and critical right to trial IS NOT for the court to decide, instead the court preforms the singular reality of a rebellion against the people by asserting "the courts' rules, grammar, or procedural infractions; are superior to the demand for justice from the citizen: am I not threatened for these very things. By what measure shall I be made to pay with property & time for "a rule, a procedural infraction, or a matter of grammar. These are expressions of BIGOTRY from the court, and have NOTHING to do with justice & LIFE. The court steals. The court acts criminally, taking what it does not own, and selling it to the bastard legal profession, and whosoever the title fits therein.
4. The plaintiff's renewed attempts to cultivate a cause of action do not "plainly and concisely state any legally recognized cause of action" as required by 735 ILCS 5/2-603. If the plaintiff is alleging a breach of contract, it should be plainly and concisely stated and all other extraneous and immaterial information not relating to that count should be deleted from his pleadings. He should plead the contract and the breach.
IN REVIEW; this is the renewed attempt of the lawyer to win irregardless of social, moral, ethical, or judicial grounds / HE HAS NO grounds of contention, and he knows it/ therefore again he attacks by the only recourse he has: the citizen is not a lawyer! Instead of testimony, the lawyer claims grammar & rules. Instead of reality, where there is no written contract, in effect, he pleads "if its not written down, then he should win." This lawyer supports the assertion that such words as spurious (which translates as "illegitimate birth; BASTARD") is of a more grammatically correct method than This is "mere shit running down, between his legs"/ my words don't need a dictionary for the masses, therefore they are more correct. Reality chooses the evidence, & the facts can NOT be stated without words; therefore testimony IS pertinent to grasping the reality & reason establishes the conduct. The insertion of legal language "735 ILCS illustrates well, the abduction of principle & discipline from the court, to destroy the order of justice and produce a dispute designed by the games played within the court. Justice understands truth as the definition of honest intent, the purpose of dignity and life, and the reality of survival as it ascends from merely a reaction to the definitions of love and true thought as life. The game of the court understands nothing of justice, this is a power demand, to abort the fundamental knowledge of life, and transform substance into "obey me, says the court/ or I will damage you". The lawyer uses the court and its games to establish critical desertion of duty: to assert the reality and display the truth. Therefore the purpose of the lawyer and the game of the court is: HOW shall we abuse, and create panic among any who would assume to come "to their playground, and play with their toys, UNINVITED"?
5. He plainly admits that dental services, including x-rays and an oral examination, were performed by the defendant. (memo, 1)
IN REVIEW; "his ASS is showing"; or "the spurious actions of a man who intentionally throws justice into the garbage, just so he can win money, or pacify his pride, resembles a jackass sitting down, because it just doesn't want to do the work.
A predator intent upon easy prey!
6. The facts as plead by the plaintiff are not factually or legally sufficient to sustain a contract cause of action. He has neither stated the contract nor alleged the breech.
IN REVIEW; the facts are plain and concise and of the type and kind as any jury in the nation would receive, without question/ therefore the facts and the legal substance exist as the fundamental right of presentation as I am the presenting party, and what and how I choose to present my case is my own decision and certainly NOT of any concern to the defense. He DOES UNDERSTAND PERFECTLY! Because the language of the land is adequate for ALL descriptions of life, property, truth, and justice, therefore the lawyer LIES.
7. In his signed "memorandum of Reality", the plaintiff refers to $87. If that is the amount in question, the filing of this suit in the law court rather than small claims court under supreme court rule 281, has no other purpose than to harass the defendant and to abuse the judicial system.
IN REVIEW; the lawyer asserts that the money is the issue. The plaintiff demands justice, IS THE ISSUE & the truth of why this case is presented. I have "been abused by this thief/ his accomplice, the lawyer, no longer attempts justice; instead, he has conceived and now executes a plot for money/ proposing that the words of my testimony are harassment (a fact he cannot prove) & the purpose of my intent is "merely to complain". I DO STATE, as I have stated: the "rampant arrogance, pride, greed, & disease of want, that HAS pervaded society/ NOW stands at the precipitous edge of destroying the world itself. As indicated by the trial of life/ this having become a portion thereof/ HAS declared: there is NO choice left, but to fight for life, justice, & truth, in every "theater, and every courtroom". This supposition of disaster is supported by the evidence presented, by history, and by the simple truth of plain and simple realities. While the lawyer or the court may disagree/ unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt/ as this is the purpose of the trial of life/ they may NOT dismiss/ death does not allow fantasies: prove what you believe.
I have chosen, to assemble the evidence of critical corruption within the court/ this case supports the assertion of violence, NOT justice, being the method of the court/ and as this lawyer so skillfully illuminates, "the violence of the court is directed against the constitution, as the court no longer knows anything of justice, but attacks even the constitution, the bill of rights, & ridicules the declaration of Independence by establishing beyond doubt: the purpose of the court IS TYRANNY! How else do you explain the language of the land as insignificant, the testimony of the litigant as harassment, the purpose of a guaranteed right to trial as an abuse of the court, & the fundamental assertion that grammar & procedure & rules are in ANY POSSIBLE WAY, "Superior to law, to inherent right, to guaranteed constitutional rights, or to justice as a definition of plain & true"? Explain the reality of your actions in these matters, and establish critical cause for any and all of these ridicules of justice, and tragedies of right.
8. The plaintiff does not provide any legal foundation for his claims, but states, "I now intend to teach you a lesson," demonstrating his vindictiveness in filing this lawsuit. (memo, 2). This is not a proper purpose for filing a lawsuit, and is clearly vexatious, harassing, and abusive.
IN REVIEW; The lawyer refers to an assertion of primary intent by the defendant/ "the defendant has VERY little to gain, yet arrogance and pride drive him to attack by the collection process, against me. He has been clearly warned, he would have much to lose". Therefore this type of risk taking can only be attributed to the reasons; "either he wants to teach me, to obey/ or he has NO respect for my life at all"/ the assumptions made herein do allow, for the retribution of a lesson in life. PROVE an alternate response was being made and I will apologize/ BUT ONLY after cross-examination. The risk versus the reward, indicates the reality of the decision is NOT "about the money". Justice and the court system constantly expands to the alteration of errant thought and behavior patterns, with lessons for that individual: it is fundamental to the establishment of justice. Should this man NOT be expected to learn better, than to initiate a "swindle" against me/ HE SHOULD LEARN INDEED, this lesson: RESPECT LIFE, including me. Issue will not be allowed, as to the courts being "the lesson"/ I have bought up the issues, because it is my responsibility, the court is the environment where that lesson is given credence as socially demanded, and correct. A judge is only a citizen with a job/ it is our responsibility as a nation to establish and support, what is FAIR and honorable as a punishment we would each expect, and accept for clear misbehavior.
9. The plaintiff did not file a jury demand at the time of filing suit as would be required by 735 ILCS 5/2-1105. Any reference to a jury is immaterial, plaintiff has waived his right to a jury trial.
IN REVIEW; The lawyer supports the demand of a judicial system consumed with arrogance & pride. The lawyer NOT ONLY rejects an association with justice, by the court/ he refers to justice as "rule 735 ILCS 5/2-1105". The purpose of "BLATANT TYRANNY" is the exercise of indiscriminate power without regard for its consequences. The lawyer seeks the cause of superiority, "he knew the rule/ therefore he wins the game". AGAIN, justice is not an option, it is a DEMAND & neither life nor justice, nor court is intended to be a joke/ "a court experience changes lives, for many/ injustice changes society/ and life itself deserves the respect of "NOT being stabbed in the back, by people who cannot face the truth". This is NOT A GAME! The lawyer asserts and claims, the filth of a legal game, which has diseased & reduced the court to an epidemic of plagues so vile, "that even the meaning of justice & constitutional guarantee, MUST be described to them in detail, or they cannot understand it at all/ therefore they have trampled justice into disgrace, and preformed the ritual sacrifice of "we have to do this, because it is a rule". A FACT, which must not continue.
IT IS THE LAW (which honors society), THE GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE DEMAND FOR JUSTICE which determines what must be done and what must NOT be done.
10. Plaintiff is aware of the requirements to follow a definite form and the importance of a plain and concise complaint. The Appellate order, in addressing Mr. Osterburs' petition to appeal in Osterbur v. Covenant Medical Center, 154 ILL. 2d. 562, Docket No. 76450 (1994) denied his petition and refers to the following holding in Bohannon V. Schertz, 21 ILL. App. 3d 149 (3rd Dist. 1974):
"The law is well settled in Illinois that a defendant has the right to represent himself and to conduct his case without the aid of an attorney, however, if this is his desire he must comply with the same rules of proceedings as would be required of an attorney." See Brewer v. National Union Building Association, 64 Ill. App. 161, affirmed 166 Ill. 221, 46 N.E. 752; Outlaw V. Young Men's Christian Association, 84 Ill App. 2d 321, 228 N.E. 2d 193; City of Chicago v. Tornados, 88 Ill. App. 2d 244, 232 N.E. 2d, 73.
This having been an order directed to Mr. Osterbur, he was clearly aware of the requirements to comply with the same rules of pleading and procedure as would be required of an attorney.
Group Exhibit A is a copy of selected pleadings and the Appellate court order (there was no written circuit court order) in Osterbur v. Covenant Medical center. Mr. Osterbur was put on notice in no uncertain terms that a complaint must be drafted properly and that the rules of the court and pleading must be taken seriously. Nevertheless, he has tried the same thing again. Particularly since Mr. Osterbur was on notice that specific requirements exist to employ the court system, his complaint in this case is so improper and incomplete that it requires sanctions. For that reason, among others pled, he should pay Defendant's reasonable legal fees and expenses.
WHEREFORE, for these reasons and those previously stated in his Memorandum of Law, Defendant J. Barry Howell, DDS respectfully moves this court to dismiss this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615, and under Ill supreme court rule 137, Defendant be awarded his full costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
J. barry Howell dds By webber & thies pc / carl m. Webber.
IN REVIEW; THE EVIDENCE AND PLAIN FACTS submitted as testimony by the plaintiff needs not be defended as to plain and concise (meanings are plain; free of impediments to view/ or more simply "not hidden in such things as rule 735 illc 5/2-615/ this is not plain: the assumption of this rule, in overruling a testimony is arrogance "plain and simple"). As the interpretation of the law is in language that must be understood BY A JURY/ the court FAILS, because a society cannot obey what it does not understand: therefore the court "lays and prepares a TRAP", and intends to force the non-lawyer into it). The testimony is CONCISE ( means very brief, only the important matters) or more simply "what is required to understand the reality described, is up to the litigant giving testimony; "the arrogance of an elaboration of misinformation such as supreme court rules like these/ qualifies as the basis of a secret code, a secret society which uses this code to control society, and demand domination of society, by refusing what is necessary to reality/ and confronting EVERY situation as a BASTARD DOG, chasing after a BITCH DOG. The only true purpose is demonstrating control and power, and the intent to abuse. This reality is NOT FOR SOCIETY/ the reality is a treason against the intent of all constitutional guarantees of society. They, these legal bastards have sold the right to proceed in the security of our own persons, knowing first hand, what the truth is/ by an unreasonable seizure of fundamental rights: these insist, before justice can be had, "we MUST LEARN THEIR LANGUAGE"! This is tyranny, this is despotism, by the demand, "that our own language is insufficient, in our own land". EXPLAIN the constitution: NOW! And defend to us all your right, to conceive such a scheme to take over and destroy the basis and foundation of this government/ when you remove the people, from participating in their own government, whether that means in court or other, you destroy the government called democracy: PROVE THIS IS NOT SO! To take from me so basic a right as to defend myself in my own language, NOT the legal shit of an ass spewing traitorous rules of an inferior language/ is to take from us all, the constitution itself. That means, YOU ARE A TRAITOR!
The basis of this legal system is the jury/ whether you like it or not! Plain and concise IS the constant in every legal case presented/ the necessity to explain justice and right, as has been done/ exists only to your disgrace, as very few understand the meaning of any portion of honesty, honor, truth, and certainly not respect. It is up to you/ to produce factual & real witnesses to prove the words & legal expectations are beyond a jury to understand/ as for me "if you insist, I will take your rules "735***" and go into the public, to see Who UNDERSTANDS, to see who believes our guaranteed rights are defended by this trash! This is not a game/ this is life, and we are YOUR EMPLOYERS! YOU, are not our gods.
If this is all "too technical" for you to understand the language of the land/ then it is the court, & those who practice therein, who lack sufficient education & they ARE, to be reprimanded or removed; clearly the lack of technical skills demands removal of all pensions, and any other perk as well, WE ARE your employers, and we will BE RESPECTED.
This lawyer offers the document from case 92-C-1222 Osterbur v. Covenant Medical Center: [THIS can be read in the case abstract of the trial of life, under the same case name]. This document is about, explanations of an injustice, and the need for a change, and the right of democracy in making such a change, created within the humanity of our needs: as the title of the inserted text chosen by this lawyer states; "a case intent upon life in human terms, not medical terms, not greed or charity, Rather truth, equality, & fair play"!
The lawyer represents this as his description of a "completely errant legal issue, without respect for the process" and then demands sanctions in this case here and now, due to the "improper use of the courtroom, for such purposes as these" . The lawyer states by design "the words are improper, for a courtroom". To which I respond; "this ASS needs a lesson in the truth of war: it is a fight to survive, it is a truth about pain & suffering, the honesty of a friend, and the respect of doing your best for all. These stand in honor & dignity to support the essence of life. These are not mental games of superiority and pride/ LIFE is the very truth & seal of a distance to be traveled, as a participant of equal value, within a destiny that we must confront. Reality does push & discipline does decide so that true order and NOT mental games, may allow truth to be our guide." The court is demanded to prove this is errant to the process of justice/ the court is demanded to prove this lacks respect for the people who gave us the freedom to choose. THE COURT IS DEMANDED to prove their way is better!
The lawyer cites a precedent of no value, I repeat: the lives, the deaths, the injuries, & the pain endured by the men & women & children whose lives were forever changed GIVES ME THE RIGHT to stand before this or any court and EXPECT JUSTICE! There is not a statement of "bow down and obey the court/ this is a liberty of life, and the proof, that we are a DEMOCRACY and you are the servant, NOT the ruler. PROVE IT IS NOT SO!