MEMORANDUM OF REALITY

IN ITS SUPPORT OF TRUTH AND FAIR PLAY

Osterbur v. J. Barry Howell

dated AUG 13,02

RE: O2 L 126

Champaign county court

The critical question: what DOES it mean "to earn the money?"

Within th context of this lawsuit the defendant swears, he has earned the money, because a SMALL amount of preliminary efforts were made, in preparation for an estimate. This so-called work, was a visual inspection of teeth (a 30 sec job), a chart indicating the various locations of old fillings, and an x-ray film. The demand is therefore attributed to an education, rather than an entitlement. A dental degree is then the focus of primary expectations. While the plaintiff asserts, a "so-called work", without VALUE to the recipient is NOT an entitlement, nor is it an educational right, it is a theft!

Therefore the focus of contention, establishes a fundamental distinction between an education, & an actual work, wherein the outcome MUST always benefit the recipient or society, OR there can be NO demand for compensation.

The investigation of critical value, assigns the following descriptions to each respective side: an education consists of 2-4 years or sometimes more, of studies in an environment of relative ease (or you flunk out). This is enjoyed by the majority and occurs among your peers, creating a social environment of limited responsibility and for most maximum opportunity/ and is supported either by parents or government in part, or as a whole/ while the rest of society supports the larger burden, of keeping these alive. In this environment of peers, exists the freedom to explore, experience, demonstrate a talent of your own choosing, and be among male & female counterparts whereby conversation need never be lacking, & opportunities exceed that of ANY other common situation in the nation. "Having personally interviewed many college graduates over the years/ the answer given to, was "college worth it"? HAS always been, "they were the best years of my life"/ very few deviate! Therefore the assertion of an obligation to pay, simply due to a college education (the probable best years of his life), MUST be assigned to the money that was spent/ loans taken and so on.

Let us review the alternative: the assertion of value by the plaintiff, is examined by the reality of "common labor". Common labor MEANS; the fundamental demand of NO WORK means; NO EAT, NO SLEEP, & NO participation within society. This reality in and of itself confronts & compromises the BASIC need to work, as IT MUST BE DONE/ therefore NO exception exists to the work apart from go elsewhere, if you can. Competition demands acceptance of ALL aspects of the job, like it or not, dangerous or not, necessary or not, because unlike the college degree where the government & university DO CONTROL certain aspects of the competition entering the workplace/ the real workplace demands it does not give. Therefore as is common to the majority; the reality conceived as HONEST & HONORABLE EXPECTATIONS when "I" must pay/ are applied to the people who "work for me", under the terms of FAIR & JUSTIFIABLE; these questions are applied to the defendant:

1. Did you do the work? Within the terms of equity, NO you did no work.

2. Did you respect the person who provided you with an opportunity to do the work? The answer applies a 7 month wait, and then another 3 months more from the time of the call, and says NO respect was given.

3. Did you at ANY time express remorse for the failure to do your assigned work {I did not assign a visual inspection or chart of old fillings, which has NO use, even for the dentist}? The answer is NO, instead the demand comes to pay or suffer.

4. Did you complete ANY professional work of ANY consequence to me, during this visit? The answer is NO, the x-rays were used to create an estimate of the job, as an entirety & cannot be used outside this office/ no dentist will accept them. I did not initiate the estimate/ I came for a broken tooth. Therefore NO professional work, created by the intent of the visit, nor the time used by the dentist, from my life/ was commenced or completed which could benefit me.

5. Did you, understand the consequence of extending the waiting period to seven full months from the initiating call, Did you understand the implication of adding another 3 months of constant return trips to the "wait for professional services"/ as it confirms the necessity of a broken tooth? To this honesty is added: of course he did/ therefore the assertion of swindle does indeed stand, as the basis of the decision "to force me away".

6. Did you understand, at the juncture of the letters to you, prepared & sent to this dentist, that ALL that was necessary WAS, abandon the charge for financial gain/ and we would be through with this? The letters ARE CLEAR, and their purpose is obvious, the dentist chooses "to force me to pay"/ even though he knows he has done NOTHING of substance, to earn the money. Instead the dentist chooses to "teach me a lesson"/ by turning my name to collection/ with every intent to DEMAND "the very last penny and more". Is this a repentance from his swindle: NO it is NOT!

7. I offer the dentist FREE ADVERTIZING depicting this situation in exact terms, as outlined by the court/ he says NO! I offer then to the dentist, "if you cannot face the public, if you fear they will reject you[ WHY else reject FREE advertizing, approved by the court], THEN pay me $5000.00 because as you intended to teach me a lesson/ I now intend to teach you a lesson/ it is FAIR!

The question of price assigns the value of dental work to the $1000.00 quoted to me at various times for a tooth crown (it varies, this is a higher end quote). I charge $20 dollars an hour/ therefore a crown representing $1000, plus roughly 50% more for taxes which must be earned and paid (add $500), plus the cost of trip and time spent from work at the dentist office 3 hours (add $60) plus pain & suffering dependent upon the abilities of the dentist/ "I get NO guarantees". Brings the total to $1560 dollars for a crown to me. $87 dollars the disputed amount, represents 4 and a half hours work plus taxes earned add 2 more hours/ or a total of 6 and a half hours of labor. The dentist can, & many do make $5460 minus $460 dollars office and material expense in this same 6 and one half hours doing crowns. Therefore explain to me Hour to hour, why this is not fair? I will explain to you/ the price of a college education (for the best years of your life)/ DOES NOT constitute a reason why you should be paid or receive a greater reward for your labor, than for mine. JUSTICE applies the term EQUAL to all parties.

Let the door open WIDE, by making the education free, from money/ an exchange for work/ for all competition as it is in the real world, and then an assignment of real value can be made. And NOW, rejecting my offer for simple (you do yours, and I will do mine, for justice sake), this person wishes to assign to me payment for his lawyer/ at a cost of $200 dollars an hour or so/ I can only guess 30 hours or so/ which means to me the price of injustice would be roughly $6000.00 IS THIS JUSTICE/ the fact that such a threat exists at all, explains extortion in a whole new light.

The question added to this lawsuit NOW BECOMES: does the expectation to ADD thousands of dollars in expense to me, constitute a true criminal action?

While the first $87 dollars was for "petty theft"/ the alteration by consequence to thousands of dollars DOES consent to a true intent for, a taking by the defendant, and in this light/ the result of GRAND THEFT, & purposeful damages DOES describe the merits of a felony. It IS the court which intervenes [ if it is has a "whim to"]/ BUT if the court refuses, then FELONY WILL be attached to the appeal. I come to the court to resolve a simple dispute with an arrogant and greedy man, without honor. The explanation of the $30,000 is sufficient and was clear from the beginning. The opportunity of the $5,000/ is an hour for hour charge and as such represents an equal standing irregardless of money; time is the human resource of value/ and my life is of equal value to his.

The fundamental discipline employed is: the RESULT is the same, as if this man hired an extortionist, to hold me for ransom/ IT IS THEFT, either way.

By the definition of simple truth, EARNED then come to mean: an entitlement due to the consequences of the actions taken, a fundamental truth of honest value, and dignified responses. The dentist did NO work of benefit/ therefore the contract for services was NEVER entered into/ therefore NO debt is due. PERIOD! NOW, however the dentist threatens with thousands of dollars, and may get it/ because the courtroom is corrupt, how else should such trivia as these claims deserve mention or constitute an action of substance. The court therein breaches its duty to the public/ and serves in a role of subservience to the sinister demands of blackmail.

In review: this writing depicts the social cause of justice is greater than this case/ the purpose is then to advise and establish a clear and definable action, usable by the public in its explanations to the government and to the court for support of equality among the people. The consequence applied to the court as corruption, is in relation to: the very critical piracy of justice, by the legal profession, of the system of public participation (jury) and fundamentally changing that system to a reality of illegitimate concerns and the illegal use of language to barricade and imprison the search for justice, behind the doors of an education, which then controls not only the money, but the very fabric which holds the nation together: the constitution and its declaration of independence and its bill of rights! These are hostages of a court system without respect for the people: This is a truth, defended by the simple words "He who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client". The difference between a lawyer and me, for instance/ is I have "first-hand knowledge". The reality presented herein is not about me/ but insists upon the certainty in the court cases reviewed: I have never lost by law/ I have only been dismissed by insignificant rules and innuendo, the court has played child, and I have been the "toy". This needs to change!!!!!!!