RETYPED/ ORIGINAL ELECTRONIC VERSION LOST

TO THE COURT

JAMES F. OSTERBUR

2191 CR 2500E ST. JOSEPH, IL 61801 FILED IN COURT 6/ 10/2002

CASE # 02-l-126

V.

J.BARRY HOWELL, DDS

(OFFICE) 1209 E. COLORADO SUITE 101 URBANA, IL 61801

RE: In the matter of property, assigned within this dispute as a fundamental constitutional right, designated by amendment 14, noted as the right of due process. And the fundamental existence of justice, as depicted within the terms, you must do the work, "to earn the billing".

IN BRIEF: this dentist did cause the plaintiff Osterbur, to believe that dental work would be done, upon a scheduled visit to Howell. The work was not received/ the dentist therein created the impetus for this trial, subsequently betrayed a professional confidence by selecting a time for actual treatment as yet another 4 months away. When the plaintiff had already waited 3 months for the initial visit/ fully expecting the broken tooth as was the complaint and purpose of the visit to be done at the first visit. The assumption and demand by Howell that this is customary and fair is EXCUSED by the plaintiff and argued Blatant Discrimination, and unfair as Howell expects to be paid for deliberately selecting to solicit my business and then refusing to work, and pretending this 7 months is common and normal practice (everybody does it, and no one complains) or he must subject himself to the consequences. Those consequences are, a deliberate and skillful effort to inform the public of a business (his) which believes, a billing irregardless of the consistency or the integrity of the work, is his right even though, "nothing consisting of a benefit to me, was ever done." He believes he should be paid, because he wants the money, for by no standard has he done the work or earned anything but contempt.

DEVELOPMENT establishes Howell demands his right to pursue the money, howell created the problem, howell arrogantly asserts, "he holds superiority" in all ways to me, by attempting to make me "a villain", howell prepares to ridicule me by using the court to make me pay, howell deceives himself that he has in some way earned a payment because he provided a visual inspection, and x-rays which are of no value to me, as no other dentist will use them, making the true consequence of his swindle/ simply a robbery of my time and resources: NO actual work of benefit to me, exists. Bringing the charge his arrogance, his fears, his emotion, and his PRIDE have attacked him, & thereby he stands accused by me of being a danger to society, because pride and arrogance are the first exhibits of the inevitable result of insanity, as pride begins to fail (its all my fault/ when in fact, I have had nothing to do with this whole matter, but ask for exactly what any other member of this society would expect: that is NOT waiting 7 months for care regarding a broken tooth).

In contrast to Howells' methods: I did make an appointment with howell, having called with the complaint of a broken tooth/ I MADE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR, that the purpose of the visit was this tooth. He knew this was my expectation. His staff assigned me an appointment in late December 2001, a much longer wait time than I expected, but as I have no regular dentist, I waited fully expecting repair would be on that day. I arrived, I waited, the staff took x-rays (which no other dentist will use). Howell came in examined the teeth visually, informed me of an additional 14 cavities by his count, and some alternate work. This is the extent of work actually done (10 minutes for a visual inspection). I inquired are you not going to repair anything (in a very calm and civil tongue)/ howell says no ( in a very clear and certain manner). I then ask for an estimate on the repairs and a bid: howell informed me of possible credit available and I indicated clearly I would pay in cash, in advance of each visit if he liked. He agrees to present a bid, and a week later a letter arrives indicating the work and the amount of the bid.

A subsequent week later, I call and accept the bid, asking to set up appointments as soon as possible. His staff begins by assigning one appointment per each week for the next 11 weeks. At which time I request why/ they insist upon filling only one cavity per visit and as such I require a visit per cavity. I have been in many dentist offices and commonly know for certain 2 or 3 cavities per visit is the norm. I complain but the staff says NO. The last appointment assigned is 7/16/02 and that does not include any work beyond cavities.

In summary, I called in late September 01, would not receive actual beneficial work until April 30/02 [until 7 months later], and would then be required to spend at least the next 11 weeks driving, waiting, & subjecting myself to a situation I would have expected at NO dentist office in this area. MY ANSWER IS NO!

a 7 month wait to fix a broken tooth/ a demand to surrender my time to inexcusable whim/ an assertion of threat beyond the purpose of the letters I sent (clarifying howells involvement; was this his idea or an error from the staff). Howell SAYS NO, this is my way, he has taken full responsibility for his staff and feels I should not complain! The intent by his declaration is a swindle/ perpetuated by the enticement of a scheduled appointment, which became used for the robbery of this intended event. Howell tempted me to his office with the promise of work/ he knew the purpose of my visit and refused, he then refused an appropriate appointment for a return visit to have the work done in a reasonable time frame/ He deliberately influences my dental needs (why should I trust another) fully understanding the results of time/ he fundamentally abandons my needs as a patient/ howell replies to my first letter, HE did this on purpose, and he has a right to do so! He has no remorse.

In return I clearly and deliberately explain that his actions against me were cogent to the needs of a courtroom and he should reconsider promptly or a trial would ensue, with the intent of establishing a reasonable judgment, that would address the needs of an individual in developing "media advertizing against his business".

Howell replies "PAY THE BILL" he has assigned, accept the accusation of "criminal intent as he has portrayed me with " ( a SLANDER to my good name). Understanding a mention of my name now exists in the written consequences of a police document, and pay (informed by certified mail, and a call from the police) or he will seek collection, and court remedies.

My reply is entirely presented within the 2 formal letters sent to howell. In keeping with those promises, the assessment of penalties begins

THEY ARE:

1. The court is asked to establish the "ground rules" for advertizing against a business. The court is required to BE SPECIFIC IN CLEAR ENGLISH WITH NO ROOM FOR CONFUSION! Do understand the needs of the common citizen are being established here/ therefore an appeal shall exert the right of public inclusion. The court is asked to declare what it means to EARN THE MONEY, or accept my definition. If the court refuses/ then it is asked to explain article 3 section 2 of the constitution; "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity...." If you cannot explain, how can you judge?

2.The court is asked to create the boundary which gives an EQUAL STANDING to the citizen with the business/ that standing does not now exist, within the following description: for the business, legal representation is a business expense, not a deductible citizen expense. The average business allows the cost of lawsuits to be distributed over the work of many people/ the citizen has only themselves. The average business can afford greater legal expenditures than the citizen and thereby buys a greater legal defense or offense. The court is asked to stand up for the citizen and describe the foundations of citizen respect/ as it applies to the basis of the words "a person who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" DEMONSTRATE the constitutional compliance with "establish justice, and promote the general welfare". Explain the difference between "truth self-evident....and inalienable rights...and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men..."the declaration of independence.

The court asserts minimal rules of procedure ARE in FACT

GREATER Than constitutional right, constitutional law, or justice and fair play/ the court has taken from me thousands of dollars through tyranny/ I DO hold the legal cases in my past to prove this: want to see them? This courtroom assassination of justice merely "makes the citizen a prey", therefore better is expected from this judge.

3. As to the slander & defamation of character, the fundamental participation in a deteriorating dental outlook (I find the profession littered with no respect, and absolute greed) a fact which has kept me away from further dentists. The work of this lawsuit and its obvious appeal which is now required of me, simply because of howell. A price of $30,000.00 dollars is affixed. Let the jury decide/ be it known I really don't care.

4. As to the assertion developed according to business risk, as indicated and calibrated within the letters sent to establish by language and content a courtroom challenge would not be pleasant/ the fact that howell chooses to pursue "at full force" a billing he does not deserve, does indicate a pride and arrogance which commonly leads to an insanity on some level. The risk of court as explained, in relation to the possible reward/ does not make sense, therefore a warning is required of me: DO NOT let your mind betray you/ or you will be sorry. "is this not more than you expected, learn the lesson"!

5. In the matter of prejudice and discrimination, it would seem proper to me/ that howell be reprimanded by the court, to preform some type of community service, in the interest of the underprivileged. Perhaps he will learn something of respect or the attainment of knowledge which leads to respect.

HERE, begins the constitutional aspects of this case

The equal protection clause asserts that true justice be the aim of the court. Therefore the introduction of irrelevant rules or laws inferior to the constitution WOULD VIOLATE the cause of justice and WOULD create a "blasphemy" within the court. All who search for justice, SHALL call this into disrepute/ because bigotry by any method constitutes a tyranny. Justice IS THE JUDGE!

Justice shall come to mean A RESPONSIBILITY on all parties, including the court/ NOT as judgment to be rendered, but as the truth, that society needs, assigned by critical & clear expectations. These expectations shall not favor any party. These expectations shall ascend from the evidence, into calculable actions, and these actions shall address & inform society with a clear & certain intent to AID & ABET the peace and security of an environment established by EQUALITY for society.

Established by the lack of integrity "everywhere" in society, as characterized by howell's response. The question becomes one of social responsibility: "WHAT DOES EACH OF US OWE THE OTHER"?

The court WILL bear in mind, the application of constitutional intent, the purpose of constitutional law, and the application of justice ALL insist upon understanding/ therefore some leniency in the establishment of this case IS the courts responsibility to endure: otherwise you must justify by the law, the fundamental difference between the citizen which you are, and the superiority which you confess. Be aware an appeal will come, intending in every aspect to include the public by participation/ choose your words well.

The fundamental precept of Democracy, therefore the critical foundation supporting the American concept of society is found as RESPECT! Therefore justice explained according to constitutional documents establishes equality, confronts those who separate themselves as better than, and demands simply "we ARE in this together".

Given this outline, as a constant & definitive authority, upon the discretions of any person including a judge or a dentist: the assertion by law is, that we shall respect each other/ as individuals, not businesses or titles! The constitutional documents ARE THE LAW, THEY ENFORCE THE LAW, & THEY LIMIT THE LAW, and no other version of law exists to overrule them.

From the critical cry to arms, from the Declaration of Independence "....we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our sacred honor", defends the assertion [ we are in this together] WHO would be enticed to fight, "for your pride or money".

From the critical promises of the Bill of Rights (the real one, not the excuse) a summation "That neither money, nor title, nor station, nor any other exercise of power can establish a cause for tyranny. Defends the assertion of a purpose clear and consistent with law and RESPECT For us all.

From the constitution itself ".....provide for the common defense..."/ THEREFORE YOU THE GOVERNMENT, THE COURT, & THE OFFICIAL ARE ORDERED TO DO THE SAME!

As applied to this case, the failure to preform in accordance with reasonable expectation, negates any other consideration of a monetary reward. The failure of the man, by the clearly passionate assertions of superiority, & the intent to command & control, rather than assess & understand & respect the realities involved, does establish a social need to be aware & informed. As such the critical resolution to advertize against; subjects the court to do its duty and protect all interests properly. The "better business bureau IS MUTE" prove they are not otherwise, to the common citizen/ in REAL AND RESOLUTE fact.

The alternative is "simply let others suffer as well, & I will not"!

This has been an attack for property against me, which does open the door to establish "what we do owe each other". The critical justice explained as a relationship of "life to life" therefore examines 3 critical truths:

THEY ARE:

1. Your are FREE to be yourself (in so far as hurting no other life)/ you are NOT free to enslave by any means, such as inappropriate billing, ANY other life.

2. You ARE created EQUAL, therefore the same as ME! Fair play & justice demand clear & certain evidence to substantiate any claim. The lack of substantial value, creates a charge of collusion, either as deliberate fraud or a fraud conceived by an alliance between an individual or business in collusion with a billing that conforms to a threat, and a robbery. FAIR MEANS: critically the same, level of input (you must EARN the money) by methods which compensate the other by "an equal output"/ this is a life measurement not a monetary one.

My time was lost (does it have no value), my visit was useless (am I considered as nothing to this man), the property of my vehicle was used in this farce of a dental appointment, and I was abused. (where is my compensation/ he demands his/ where is the work that benefitted me). A title is nothing, you must earn the money.

3 Justice is more than a word, it is a RIGHT. Therefore the relationship created as life to life, exists within the framework built upon BASIC TRUST! Trust assures each, that an understanding exists, NOT a simple expectation. Understanding declares a constant value, an honest evaluation, a certain honor, & a respectful opportunity to participate, in any disagreement as may arise, WITH HONORABLE INTENT. Based upon reasonable social law & common value. This has not proven true for howell, at this time, he asserts superiority/ because I entered his office and sat in his chair he demands compensation.

The constitution says: we owe each other the blessings of liberty/ which means the responsibility to demand justice here, is a duty. The bill of rights says; that inherent rights are the basis and foundation of government/ therefore, "he must, as must all, EARN THE MONEY. The declaration of Independence says: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor/ therefore the court not only has an obligation to me, but to us all, to fight for justice, not simply hide.

SUMMATION

The reality of common practice in dentistry as in medicine in general exists in the opposite of justice. Like howell the intent & purpose are clear & simple for very many, "give me the money". Therefore a lack of respect from every side, DOES produce the critical deterioration of society itself, from "Life to life/ to a reality of barriers, & attacks such as howell represents", it is society itself that suffers from letting this man swindle.

Social greed merely mirrors the experience of loneliness, and demonstrates the frustrations of choosing between WANTS and the people who are chosen "To be spent", in the grasp of a belief, "that happiness can be bought". TRULY, happiness can only be shared!

These expressions do seek to establish an understanding, as justice is built, and reality demonstrates the existence of purpose & intent. For clarity, to those who worship money, as you race from purchase to purchase, discarding everything, but the fantasies & the images of your own mind/ answer this question: do you truly desire life as nothing more than a number, surrounded by the numbers others place upon you/ or is LIFE more important that the measurements of your mind? And again: If you won/ own the world and everything in it, with NOT ONE LIFE, other than yours to "keep you company" Then would you be rich or poor?

The common human experience is a reaction to someone else's greed, lust, or thirst for power/ if you are not happy, its because YOU are entangled in these things.

NOTIFICATION IS GIVEN

This is to be mailed to the various news agencies around the immediate area. NO interview will be given/ my face & my form are MY PERSONAL PROPERTY, and to use them without my express written permission IS THEFT! BEWARE!

Use or do not use, but remember the story is about social justice, not personal aspects beyond my name or the descriptions given here.

Howell precipitated this problem, howell designed the response, howell insisted upon a legal recourse, howell gets his wish.

As for me, a simpler resolution, establishing guidelines is needed.

As indicated in my letter/ howell is to provide the name and address of the person and company who he says, provided him with legal support in this matter/ that they may be included in this trial. WHY Should they not support their position? The court is summoned to provide this support to me.

IN REVIEW: this legal filing establishes a testimony as would be consistent with a jury trial. it attempts to establish the fundamental evidence of the plaintiffs expert testimony, as it represents his life, and the actions of the defendant which interfered with that life. This filing also considers the corruption of the court (as an entity) and applies the need to instruct the legal system in the matters of justice, as the court has long ago discarded truth and reason/ for the singular purpose of power. In the design of power, only the money, the influence, and the control, matter/ the reality becomes and is in the common relationship of the court to the citizen: simply, HOW shall we devise a situation without compromise where the immunity we claim, cannot be contested? The answer is, "control the rules, control the language, teach the lawyer, justice is the tool of fools". By any measure, this is "the presence of the beast/ an illustration of very simple purposes, intent upon destruction by the shredding of every principle of fair play and honest truth." The court is then a game of predator and prey, and we the people are its prey.