UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CASE #94-2001

JAMES F. OSTERBUR

V.

STATE OF ILLINOIS

RE: 2:94-CV-02001

THE COMMON CITIZENS OUTCRY FOR JUSTICE

REGARDING ORDER FILED JAN 11, 1994

The assertion that this is a "review of a small claims court decision is inaccurate". This federal action RESTS upon the simple claim: I CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF A CHARGE THE PLAINTIFF NEVER MADE! This reality: LEADS TO THE CLEAR ASSUMPTION THE JUDGE, STEPPED ASIDE, FROM HIS BENCH AND BECAME THE PLAINTIFF/PROSECUTOR AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. as this is NOT within the limits of judicial action. The issue of a personal attack of Slander exists.

A simple demand for the appellate court to fix this complaint fell upon DEAF EARS, even when, clear wording indicating further improper actions existed, was used

The court further let stand without answer the DEMAND: SHOW YOUR STATUTE, THAT ALLOWS A SUPREME COURT RULE of procedure, EXCEEDS a citizens right to JUSTICE and to be heard as a man, NOT a lawyer! This too fell upon deaf ears.

The court insisted upon precedent and yet refused to acknowledge the industrial standard given.

The court KNOWS: DUE PROCESS IS, a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual----called, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS!

The decision 92-s-2991 is BASED upon a mechanics testimony 20 months after rebuild, UNFAIR!

The decision gen #4-93-0441 RESTS entirely upon : NOT JUSTICE OR LAW but upon failure to comply with exacting standards NOTED as rules 342-343. When these rules were complied with the appellate judges then state: "well it doesn't quite comply with rule 341 & 344".

This is TYRANNY, rules 341 & 344 were NEVER MENTIONED in the preceding (only) order of the court, and like 92-s-2991. The decision is based upon a ruling which I was NEVER CHARGED WITH, NOR allowed to comply with.

The DECISION of the state supreme court #76128 could NOT be more arbitrary as it is the single word "denied" and has NO BASIS AT ALL.

The court knows: THE LAW IS BASED UPON STATUTE, where is it?

DUE PROCESS confined by the fourteenth amendment DOES NOT ALLOW; convictions where no charge was made. DOES NOT ALLOW JUDGEMENTS WITHOUT LAW. DOES NOT ALLOW, constitutional rights to be destroyed by procedural rule. DOES ALLOW the validity of public debt incurred, and the obligation of said debt/to be met. Injury, as a personal assault, has occurred. The liability of personal injury is a debt. that injury occurred in a public courtroom at the hand of a public official, and is SUBSTANTIAL,.

The assertion that: "to democratic change" were denied in the state proceedings, is completely misread. RATHER, THE DEMAND IS FOR A LEGAL DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED; and for $1,000,000.00 from the state of illinois to be used aby public citizens of the state of Ill for "corruption of the court issues". And for: "ERASE FRAUD, FROM MY NAME"!

The right to demand is held within those issues above and: the further demonstrated, "PROBLEMS OF THE COURT" examined within those "four volumes".

The fourteenth amendment, and the constitution, and the Bill of Rights ARE SUFFICIENT, memorandum of law! As the fourteenth amendment was denied to me, and more.

The appellate court NOR the state supreme court dealt with this issue NOR did they substantiate or submit any LAW or STATEMENT that this, WAS NOT SO! Therefore due process NOT ONLY DID NOT OCCUR BUT WAS, Quashed by the court itself.

The court suggests "filed within thirty". IS INAPPROPRIATE AS THIS CASE: IS ABOUT THE COURT ITSELF, THE JUDGES ARE THE DEFENDANTS, NOT for there judicial actions (which implies within the law) BUT for their LACK of judicial action and for a personal attack! These issues are NOT covered by the immunity clause for they are NOT JUDICIAL ACTS, these are acts of corruption and thereby subject to LAW. Canons are given as well as oaths of office in the "four volumes"!

This Federal court order pg 3 further declares injury upon this plaintiff by noting the Eleventh Amendment and rule 2.12, "pretrial procedures in prisoner cases." As I was never a prisoner, as the court documents "four volumes" clearly indicate; and IF the documents were read, would indicate an attempt to prejudice the plaintiff with thoughts of jail, while he merely attempts JUSTICE!

JUSTICE IS NOT a frivolous pleading, and immunity is NOT an absolute! And, the legal determination of a constitutional question IS the courts DUTY!

It is in the "Virginia" Bill of Rights adopted june 12, 1776 by the general congress of the United States of America AS THE REASON AND PURPOSE OF THE NATION TO BE. That defines Best, the purpose and procedure of a JUDGE: section 2. That all power is vested in and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

The assertion by the court, that the eleventh amendment has authority OR that the plaintiff may not sue the state of Ill for damages inflicted by its public employees is challenged.

The constitution of the state of Ill and the United States both agree certain rights are inherent and inalienable SUCH AS DUE PROCESS. The IL second amendment and the right to remedy and justice IL 12th Amendment.

Again the pleading remains HOW CAN I BE CONVICTED BUT WAS NEVER CHARGED, DO I NOT have the right to know ALL charges prior to commencement of court proceedings? And DOES the judge have the right to accuse IF the plaintiff DID NOT, and DO I NOT have the right to remedy to DEMAND JUSTICE rather than arbitrary procedural rule. AND DO I NOT have the right to DEMAND FULL DISCLOSURE OF LAW when so denied AND HAVE THAT LAW substantiated by the court.

The court suggests its power is immune, the constitution SAYS ARTICLE III "the judges both of the supreme and inferior court, shall hold their office during good behavior....", and in article III section 2.1. "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws..... 2. IN ALL CASES affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY.....".

Further established within section 17 IL constitution, Discrimination exists regarding the property of case 92-s-2991 HAVING NOT BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED WITH FRAUD, 92-s-2991 was a warranty case and the industrial standard was DENIED, which is a true discrimination against, myself the defendant, NO warranty given, yet I am required to exceed the industrial standard.

The IL constitution section 23. Fundamental principles REQUIRES THE CITIZEN TO BE RESPONSIBLE and IS OBLIGATED to recognize and enumerate the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES of civil government to their REPRESENTATIVES.

The court suggests: "entitled to absolute immunity" that fundamental principles enumerated by the individual ARE USELESS, that the Judge DOES ANYTHING, and is innocent, REGARDLESS of conduct or decisions outside the LAW AND JUSTICE. Bringing the question: IS THE JUDGE GREATER THAN LAW OR JUSTICE?

The test: Is this what the Constitution says? OR has the court corrupted itself.

The question therefore exists: IS A JUDGE ALONE CAPABLE OF INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE OR DOES the language of the LAW which CLEARLY contradicts a judges opinion take precedent over a judge.

The test: IS LAW OR THE JUDGE GREATER?

The constitution of IL and the U.S. both agree the true test is NOT a question of law or judge, BUT a question of establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty for all!

Examined as Constitutional Decree: JUSTICE, TRANQUILLITY AND SECURITY: ARE THE PURPOSE of law and judge, ANYTHING LESS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. There is NO clause of immunity within the constitution, a corruption. I DO think it can be said Chief Justice Marshall AGREED in McCulloch V. Maryland 1819 "Let the end be legitimate, Let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional. THE RIGHT OF TRIAL IS MINE!

AN INQUIRY

Is hereby demanded, to be held, to determine is BIAS exists within the federal court order filed Jan 11, 1994 returning to pg 3 Eleventh amendment &....C.D.I.L. rule 2.12 "pretrial procedures in prisoner cases."

The question remains and MUST BE examined to determine: did the judge issue without reading? Irregardless of the plaintiff lack of proper procedure this order is filled with pre-judgements involved in this case. IF unread how can those pre-judgements exist. IF read, does C.D.I.L. rule 2.12 constitute a threat, and if so HOW CAN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HEARING OCCUR?

Judgements based upon less than a complete understanding ARE NOT judgements; they are dismissals based upon arrogance and prejudice!