{this text is recopied from handwritten and should be considered as close as is reasonably possible}
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL COURT
OSTERBUR, JAMES
V.
STATE OF ILLINOIS
RE: 94-2001
A WRIT OF RIGHT
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY
Cause of action: FAILURE of the government of the, STATE OF ILLINOIS to provide, "THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF JUSTICE THROUGH THE ILLINOIS COURTS SYSTEM, that system being the circuit court, appellate court court, and the state supreme court." "THEREFORE CHANGE IS NECESSARY"!
A review of case: Cole V. Osterbur champaign county #92-S-2991, general #4-93-0441, and supreme #76128
SHALL PROVE: CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES TO; establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, WERE ABANDONED.
SHALL PROVE: JUSTICE was forsaken, replaced with procedure, and that procedure DID NOT INTEND NOR ALLOW compliance to be made.
SHALL PROVE: The Judiciary FAILED to rely upon legislative law or FAILED the greater test of Constitutional law.
SHALL PROVE: THE JUDICIARY is biased against those poor, OR against those who lack formal legal education.
SHALL PROVE: The Judicial Inquiry of a public citizen is mocked by the court.
SHALL PROVE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE have been abandoned, in favor of foreign languages, which the people do not understand, NOR did they assent to!
SHALL PROVE: There is cause, therefore fundamental change is constitutionally called for, as provided by: "we the people....in order to form a more perfect union....."
THE DEMAND: IS for change, is for justice, is for due process, is for $1,000,000.00 to be used by/from the state of Illinois, FOR private citizen issues involving corruption of the court, OVER and above current funding programs, AND for a legal determination of the constitutional issues derived from: "the opportunity for the PUBLIC to directly control, IS READY!"
I, James F. Osterbur, DO proceed in the matters of court case circuit #92s2991, appellate gen #4-93-0441, and supreme #76128. Requesting Jury trial in Federal court and shall present evidence as follows:
Examination of the small claims complaint: ....for a 82 buick skylark car....
The judges' decision: for the taped record....notices the definition of fraud
This case 92s2991 was about a car and monetary reimbersement, judgement is made by the judge against the defendant, as a personal attack. This case is strictly limited to a vehicle and as such IS an extended warranty case; and was defended as such. At issue:.......having new motor, almost new transmission.
Examination of the case: page 6 lines 3 & 4 Question: when did you purchase......Answer. page 6 lines 5-10 It was in march of 1991. Question: last year was 92, maam. Warranty evaluation is over 18+ months of personal ownership by the plaintiff of said vehicle.
Judgement is based: page 76 lines 2-6....statements of a qualified mechanic.....!
At issue: mechanics testimony pg 51 lines 3-8 examined on NOVEMBER 10, 1992 representing a time lapse of 20 months (roughly) and several thousand miles and maintenance at the plaintiffs discretion.
Point of fact: the motor was NOT examined by any method which could be construed as adequate, to determine the original condition of the motor, at its sale date. Even so NO physical evidence, of any kind, was presented.
Point of fact: the plaintiff testified that the motor was newly rebuilt pg 17 lines 16-22 ....NO ridge at the top...... Answer. that's correct. By her mechanics own standard pg 52 line 10-16 ......condition of the cylinder walls.....ring wear......
Point of fact: ANY MOTOR can be destroyed within a few minutes (seconds) by a wide variety of reasons.
Examination of the case reveals: plaintiff DID damage the engine herself pg 13 line 24, pg line 10-12, pg 16 lines 1-4 and pg 16 lines 20-22. Defendant testifies pg 68 lines 8-13
At issue: Plaintiff states pg 16 line 13-19 .....hose....! Defendant testifies pg 68 lines 14-22 she told me...hose had a knife slit...half inch long.
Point of fact: Radiator hose was new at rebuild; ad reads, etc(new hoses, belts, wires, and more). A manufacturers defect or tampering IS NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY! page 65 lines 6-23.
Examination of the case: Defendant testifies as to threats pg 21 line 17 .....he had a gun...was present (judge quashes)
At issue: was sufficient warranty coverage offered by defendant, pg 63 lines 17-24
I DID NOT GUARANTEE IT.
Pg 67 lines 1-10 .....I gave her..... pg 9 line 24....he gave me $300.00...... AND 2 weeks later pg 9 line 4-17....(defendent fixes vehicle).
Point of fact: Damage inflicted by the plaintiff (running the car without coolant) described herein VOIDS ALL GM NEW CAR WARRANTEES!
At issue: must I, the defendant, provide greater coverage than the industrial standard?
Examination of the case: pg 45 line 22-24 .....why did it take 18 months....pg 46 lines 1-7 The Court.....(NOT PERTINENT).
Substantive review: This is an extended warranty case, an evaluation of why an extension of time is warranted is necessary in such a case!
The court indicates BIAS AND PRE-JUDGEMENT, by demanding (time constraints are common in ALL WARRANTY issues) are irrelevant.
The ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION, the judge has already determined guilt and pronounced judgement as fraud, PRIOR to the defendants testimony or his witness' testimony. That determination is based entirely on hearsay by the judges own words pg 36 line 1-9 .....right to do....some of the rules.....its only fair!
Further evidence: of heresay used against the defendent pg 75 lines 23-24......the witnesses who aren't here....and pg 62 lines 7-19.
At issue: Slander pg 75 lines 19-22 even though the car was NOT warranted, every effort was made PRIOR TO SALE, DURING SALE, AND AFTER SALE, to insure the plaintiff KNEW exactly what she was buying, pg 63 line 17-24 and did buy exactly what she was told, with regard to the motor. pg 13 line 14-21 and pg 14 line 1-8 (clearly indicating greed was NOT involved).
At issue: almost new transmission....testimony pg 59 line 14-24. And pg 60 line 6-8.... The court: any questions you want to ask him about his testimony ma'am? Plaintiff responds: NO SIR.
Testimony by defendant pg 61 lines 5-16 (clearly indicates OPEN TESTIMONY, NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL!
Defendant states: the existence of a problem with stated mileage and "actual" mileage on transmission was learned by the defendant NO SOONER THAN: pg 59 of testimony AND IMMEDIATE METHODS ENSUED, to correct that problem, testimony pg 61 lines 8-16! Pg 61 lines 7-8 (clearly indicate nothing to be gained by lying) when I the defendant, received that information pg 61 line 14-16,
POST-TRIAL
Motion by the defendant NOT EVEN READ pg 3 line 10-15
Citation hearing: Denial of supreme court proceedings, refusal to accept evidence pg2 line 8-19 refused to acknowlege evidence received by judge of supreme court trial sent days earlier! Pg 2 line 16-19 indicates evidence received, and simple legal TRAP ensued, set/operated by judge pg 2 line 21-22.
At issue: Does a trial proceeding through the court, in a civil case, have immunity from persecution, OR NOT?
Post Motion trial (stay) pg 2 line 21 ....$1500.00 cash bond....! Judgement was for $1290.00 TOTAL. Judge requires $210.00 MORE than judgement.
At issue: IS the requirement of MORE THAN JUDGEMENT; TYRANNY pg 3 line 6-11?
I AM FORCED TO PROVIDE A VEHICLE FOR 18 MONTHS FOR FREE, AND THEN PAY HER INTEREST ON MY MONEY!
AN EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLATE CASE
From the order #4-93-0441 derived from letter dated 8/26/93 appellate court, TO COUNSEL:
At issue: show cause on or before 9/2/93
Examined: mailing time (one) day, receipt of letter 8/27/93 (FRIDAY, at the earliest). I received on saturday morning 8/28/93, leaving sunday a religious day, and 3 and one half possible working days, (1) more day for return mail. The result JUSTICE is dependant UPON formal knowlege of rule 342 and 343 existed. JUSTICE would be dismissed within 3 and a half working days, after notice is received, based upon "rule 342 and 343, IF NOT COMPLIED TO."
An examination of rule 342: Appendix to the brief; shall include a copy of the judgement....notice of appeal, and a complete table of contents...(1) the nature of each document (2) in case of ....date of filing (3) the name.....
An examination of rule 343: Times for filing and serviceing briefs: (a) time appellant shall file within 35 days.....(c) extending or shortening time.......amended 9/1/1974. ILL supreme court ....when the appellant fails to file a brief when due.....dismissed....UNLESS within 14 days of the entry date of that order, the appellant......!
At issue, IS JUSTICE: from the dictionary; the quality of being just (correct), impartial (without preference), or fair (concerned with equality and right)?
NO dissention is made as to the need for all pertinent materials. HOWEVER the issue raised: I, the appellant, came to court expecting FAIR, IMPARTIAL, and just consideration of a conflict with the appellee, and instead am REQUIRED to confront, RATHER than receive instruction; Discrimination is the RESULT. Reliance WAS made upon a reasonable relationship between DUE PROCESS AND A PROPER PURPOSE.
This complaint directs the court to: Bias against the poor OR those who lack a formal legal education.
Rule 342 and 343 WERE COMPLIED WITH, within the time limit.
An examination of the order 9/2/93 appellate court. APPEAL DISMISSED: In response to a rule....the document does not comply with supreme court rules 341 & 344 concerning FORM AND CONTENT of briefs, THE MANNER OF FILING, AND THE NUMBER OF COPIES. .....also fails to provide citations to any authority....(A LIE). A COHERENT FACTUAL BACKGROUND, UNDERSTANDABLE BY THE COMMON CITIZEN WAS PROVIDED!.......violates rule 341 (e) (7)...... In view of the substantial failure of appellant to comply with supreme court rules concerning FORM AND CONTENT......DISMISSED!
AT ISSUE: WHEN DID JUSTICE OR LAW BECOME A SUPREME COURT RULE?
An examination of: the Notice of an appeal filed may 20, 1993 and its subsequent brief mailed sept 1, 1993 (ONE DAY BEFORE JUDGEMENT OCCURRED)
{INFERRED: they didn't even read or wait for it, mailing would take away that day}
SHALL PROVE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE with rule 341 (e) (7)
This complaint directs the court to: A MOCK TRIAL
A RULE IS NOT A LAW
A RULE DOES NOT ESTABLISH JUSTICE IN THE CASE.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT HAVE BEEN ATTACKED.
An examination of Judicial Inquiry board nov 23, 1993 Information.....meets one day each month.....has only limited authority..."CANNOT intervene, review......take action against....has NO jurisdiction......cannot discuss.....will not engage in debate...publicly. " THE MANY GRIEVANCES....a complaint of a single instance....but subsequent complaints of the same nature against the same judge MAY ULTIMATELY call for board action......intangible, benefit.
This complaint directs the court to: FAILURE of the state, NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE JUSTICE, BUT to provide an adequate method for intervention and REMOVAL. The court is further reminded, EACH CITIZEN IS admonished to bear TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE to support and defend the constitution and the laws of the United States.
At issue: DEFINE? DOES THIS JUDICIARY COMPLY?
AN EXAMINATION FO SUPREME COURT CASE 76128
Petition for leave to appeal, Denied. Dated dec 1, 1993: Mandate issued to the appellate court 12/23/93 NO CAUSE, NO REASON, NO LAW, NO APPEAL within the state of IL authority (PROVIDES, DEFINITION OF TYRANNY).
Within supreme court documents case #76128 IS: the DEMAND, "SHOW ME THE LEGISLATIVE LAW, AND DEFEND THE JUDICIAL SUPPOSITION, that a supreme court rule is greater than the LAW".
Within supreme court documents: Questions involving the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; supported within the trial by reproducable evidence, as well as trial documentation, and judicial misconduct.
Within supreme court documents: Record of a judge who exceeded his authority, record of a judge who committed SLANDER, and a complete failure to stay within the boundaries of LAW!
Within supreme court documents: a reminder of Judicial DUTY, CONSCIENCE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE! An oral contract with the court dismissed and the question: IS LAW THE AUTHORITY OR HAS THE JUDGE DISCARDED LAW, and become a TYRANT?
FORMALLY NOTED: I, James F. Osterbur, DO DEFEND: MY NAME AND MY LIFE, within this case; as FRAUD is a single word for liar and thief! My life, and my Name are IMPORTANT POSSESSIONS TO ME!
This case denied DUE PROCESS TO ME, in that NO MENTION of fraud was made until the judgement. HAD I, been informed, the trial would have been conducted differently, even so it was the judge NOT the plaintiff who accused me! The appellate court, cast doubt: ARE THEY PROTECTING THE JUDGE OR THE CITIZEN? The IL supreme court received court documentation case #76128 and issued a ONE WORD STATEMENT: "DENIED".
An examination of this type of arbitrary court REVEALS:
The court is unable to defend its action.
The court is unwilling to rely upon LAW.
The court has TAKEN for itself exclusive privilege.
The court protects itself NOT THE PUBLIC.
The court DOES NOT BELIEVE, the common public citizen is its governing body!
The court HAS OVERRULED the legislative, and executive branch and made ITS OWN RULES SUPERIOR TO JUSTICE OR LAW!
THE REALITY OF LIVING: JUSTICE IS GREATER THAN LAW, AND LAW IS GREATER THAN RULE, IS DENIED!
At issue:....."citations of supporting authority..." within the initial, notice of appeal filed 5/20/93 CITATIONS OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARD are made (again this case is about a car). Clear reference is made of LACK OF DUE PROCESS (1st page). Testimony identifying specific evidence plaintiff received what the defendant sold (page 2). Specific contract issues identified which were discarded. Proper and reasonable evidence stating defendants character (page 5) and considerable proof provided. within the brief 9/1/93 Identification of CLEAR, IMPROPER, AND BIAS'D, and illegal procedure by the judge!
A failure to identify these realities coupled with the CLEAR DESIRE, by the appellate court, to "get rid of", this case without cause, can only lead to the conclusion: "Protection of another member of, "the profession", MORE IMPORTANT than, Justice to the common citizen"!
The REALITY of even the SMALLEST indication of truth, to the above statement, DEFINES FUNDAMENTAL PLUNDERING OF CONSTITUTIONAL DECREES AND MANDATES, within the Judicial system of the state of IL HAS OCCURRED!
Those Decrees in part are: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE.
THE "VIRGINIA" BILL OF RIGHTS adopted june 12, 1776
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION
THE CODE OF ETHICS
OATH OF OFFICE
AND
THE HONOR BESTOWED UPON THE OFFICE OF JUDGE, BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!
Justice asks the question: Who deserves the final authority among men/women?
The U.S. Supreme Court has declared: "they are the final authority"! The Constitution differs with this statement, establishing "the government as a whole", has the final authority. The government IS, THE PEOPLE. Therefore the only conclusion that can be substantiated is THE PEOPLE ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY.
Having established authority through Democracy (one person, one vote) comes the question: What authority, and how is it to be established!
The Foundation of the U.S. Constitution is its beginning: "WE, the people....." ALL the remaining words go to simple organizational limits and responsibilities or to amendments, (HOW to best describe the foundation words through legislature). In its day, when communication was difficult, at best; this was the Best government could do.
ALL THINGS CHANGE, COMMUNICATION IS EASY, THE MASSES ARE EDUCATED, AND THE VOTE IS ORGANIZED AND SIMPLE. With all due respect, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO DIRECTLY CONTROL, IS READY!
Our Authority, "WE the people", extends to whatever, the MASSES, can choose for themselves. These things ARE: the fundamental principles through which all other decisions are made! These things could include: Environmental compliance, the budget equation, freedoms that affect HOW, WHY, AND WHO.
"WE the people," pay the bill, fight the war, protect ourselves and each other, THIS RIGHT IS OURS!
The establishment of this authority is "one person, one vote) AFTER sufficient opportunity to hear and decide!
a footnote: Fundamental rights or principles CAN NOT be expressed UNLESS, the words and expressions are limited.
The definition of those words and expressions: MUST CONFORM to the PUBLIC PERCEPTION and therefore chosen BY THE PUBLIC, BY VOTE!
Constitutional Authority IS GRANTED for change, WITHIN THE WORDS: "WE the people...., IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION.....and secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution....
At issue: the directive, "in order to form a more perfect union" MUST BE CONSTRUED; to be an ACTIVE (NOT DORMANT) passage, or mandate to the people, "We the people", (OURSELVES) to alter or RE-INVENT government, when that government shall be found inadequate or contrary to the common benefit, protection, and security of the people (SO SAYS, the "virginia" Bill of Rights, adopted june 12, 1776 as a firm and coherent DEFINITION OF; WHY FIGHT FOR THIS REVOLUTION?)
This Mandate IS FURTHER DECLARED: A declaration July 4, 1776 ".....to secure these RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it"......."institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness....."
At issue: the purpose, "and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". Liberty as defined: the power to be FREE. This power is founded in government and IS: THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!
At issue: Ownership, "....do ordain and establish this constitution...." These words DO NOT seek a intervention or radical change RATHER, presentation and qualification as is necessary to Democratic (one person, one vote) change!
Democratic (by the people) change, WILL FUNCTION CORRECTLY! The reality involved, requires MORE THAN majority rule, it IS herey suggested adequate representation is determined by NO LESS THAN 70% IN FAVOR (the issue arises again at ______years). NO LESS THAN 80% (the issue arises again at ______years. NO LESS THAN 90% (the issue arises again at ________years)!
Preliminary voting determines a single description, the vote is YES OR NO, (preliminary voting means, by the people).
It can NOT be Democratic UNLESS: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, FUNDAMENTAL RESTRAINTS, THE RIGHT OF CHOICE, AND A RELIANCE UPON! {INFERRED: the Constitution}
Determinations MUST BE: Capable of reaching EVERY man/woman!
Forced to confront: ISSUE is now taken: "with the use of a foreign language in the midst of FREE ACCESS to legal information." The case Miranda V. Arizona clearly established the RIGHT TO BE PROPERLY INFORMED (fraud is a criminal charge)! In a language that is understood.
At issue: MUST I, study a foreign language (NOT the language, commonly stated, the language of the land) TO OBTAIN JUSTICE. It is hereby stated, I, have been, to ALL availiable legal assistance (lawyers), availiable in this area, NONE have been helpful. I, further DO state, I cannot afford the stated price of lawyers at this locale. THEREFORE I am confronted by: language barriers NOT suited to JUSTICE, for the common man/woman!
NO, possibility is allowed for arguements involving a "dead language". ALL LANGUAGE IS INTERPRETED AND THEREBY THE SAME!
Consequently the use of a foreign language must be concluded as: WENT BEYOND CONGRESSIONAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, OR "JUDICIAL POWER," to impose; "the SECRECY, OR SECRET SOCIETY," upon the public of a language NOT their own!
At issue: The DISRESPECT evident: "within the appellate court order 9/2/93 "In view.....substantial failure...to comply...concerning form and content of brief...DISMISSED,...."; for the common citizen!
The result of which IS CONTEMPT for that citizen, "A LACK OF RESPECT"!
The broader ISSUE: What constitutes, "SUBSTANTIAL FAILURE"?
FOR THE PUBLIC: When the ISSUES and actions relevant to the understanding of time and circumstance are fully disclosed, in such a way, as the average JURY could easily understand; THEN THE JUDGE MUST UNDERSTAND, OR GIVE UP his/her position!
Point of fact: These words are the essence and foundation of a JURY TRIAL! AND A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL OF DEMOCRATIC RULE!
THE DISTINCTION IS: AUTHORITY VERSUS POWER!
THE TEST PRESENTED, IS THEN: DOES THE COURT SYSTEM OF ILLINOIS EXERT PROPER AUTHORITY (AS DEMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS PEOPLE) OR DOES THE COURT SYSTEM PROCLAIM POWER OVER THE PEOPLE (WHICH IS TYRANNY)?
CITATIONS
SCHECTER POULTRY CORPORATION V. UNITED STATES 295 U.S. 495, 55 S. CT. 837, 79 L. ED. 1570 (1935)
Question involves "codes of fair competition".
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES
....Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power...powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are no at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the tenth amendment "the powers NOT delegated......to the people."
Applied to; the issue of foreign language, or writings that constitute "foreign language" for the majority.
At issue: DO the people KNOW the law, OR has the court HIDDEN the law? (from the majority)
The broader issue: "Ignorance of the law is NO excuse" IS TYRANNY, IF, that law was hidden OR the majority could NOT readily describe such restraint as necessary and logical. The issues of RIGHT TO KNOW, exceed issues represented by
could/should have known.
MARBURY V. MADISON 1 CRANCH 137, 2 L.ED. 60 (1803)
Question involves: Right to a commission and subsequent jurisdiction issues.
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL
The first object of inquiry is- has the applicant a right to the commission demands? 2. ....second inquiry: which is: If he has a right....do the laws of his country afford him a remedy?
As applied to the question: IS Constitutional doctrine sufficiently broad (We the people,.....in order to form a more perfect union....) to allow the public citizen, opportunity to be informed, and then the RIGHT TO VOTE PERSONALLY (one person, one vote) on the broad/basic issues, through mass communication; RATHER THAN, to vote for someone, to vote for me/us!
THE ISSUE: BRING THE MAJOR ISSUE TO ME (THE PUBLIC CITIZEN) THAT I MAY VOTE MYSELF!
Chief Justice Marshall: That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected...The judical power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say, that in using it, the constitution should not be looked into?
Examined in detail: The issue represented is a simple one; WHO holds the greater power, the people (as a vast majority) or the "government"?
2. Has communication, education, and the means to obtain an accurate vole, become sufficient for TRUE DEMOCRACY (majority rule) OR NOT?
The fundamental issue becomes: ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE READY, AND ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABLE, TO CONTROL THEIR DESTINY, BY VOTING ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES THEMSELVES!
GIBBONS V. OGDEN 9 WHEAT. 1, 6 L.ED. 23 (1824)
A case involving exclusive privilege
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: ....As men whose intentions require NO concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots, who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule, that the objects for which it was given, especially, when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction...."
Examined within: "let me vote for the issue myself". The words...."employed words in their natural sense..." may be assumed as a living entitlement, justifying a further escape from the bonds of servitude (where other men/women control) to a truer democracy where one person/one vote decides, within well-defined borders of EQUALITY, HONESTY, AND RIGHT, such as a written constitution provides. To those concerned, the constitution was written and provided by revolutionariesl, BUT these words are NOT revolutionary, they are rather a fulfillment, of the ideals; as BEST men/women of this day, can make them.
The fundamental issue: who BEST protects and honors the DECREED CONSTITUTIONAL (MAJORITY RULE) MANDATES, REQUIREMENTS, AND RIGHTS; the people or representatives of the people?
Examined in detail: The issue represented IS,
MAJOR REALITIES WHICH SHALL INVADE THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, SUCH AS:
WHERE THE MONEY IS SPENT.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE.
SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION.
DISTINCT PERSONAL RIGHTS.
"BOUNDARY MARKERS", whereby government employees/officials are, FIRED AND PENALIZED!
ETC!
The test examined: YES, WE DO; means a clear and distinct opportunity for discussion shall be proved by government, RESULTING in a populace vote to decide, IF WE WANT, to obtain and use such an opportunity as this.
The construction of such a test as this REQUIRES A CLEAR AND DISTINCT CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION AND AS SUCH, FALLS WITHIN THE JUDICIAL POWER!
Controversy established: History suggests, every attempt to alter the current power, political, judicial, or otherwise WILL be met with resistence. The controversy begins with the LEGAL DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY, to do otherwise would be to discredit a system that has brought the American people this far (there is NO INTENTION to do so).
ONCE the legal constitutional decisions, as provided within, "the powers no delegated.....NOR prohibited by it are reserved......to the people."
At issue: "the powers not delegated".
Examined at, "its own test" from MARTIN [FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE] V. HUNTERS LESSEE
MARTIN [FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE] V. HUNTERS LESSEE 1 WHEAT 304, 4 L.ED. 97 (1816)
A case of state court V. constitutional powers
JUSTICE STORY: ......Preamble of the Constitution declares, by "the people of the United States." There can be no doubt, that it was competant to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend OR RESTRAIN these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and ....on the other hand, this instrument, like every other grant, is to have a reasonable construction, according to the import of its terms; and where a power is expressly given, in general terms, it is not to be restrained to particular cases, unless that construction grows out of context, expressly, or by necessary implication. Teh words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and NOT in a sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged.
The constitution unavoidably deals in general language. It did NOT SUIT the purposes of the people, in framing this great charter of OUR LIBERTIES, to provide for minute specifications of its powers, OR TO DECLARE THE MEANS BY WHICH THOSE POWERS SHOULD BE CARRIED INTO EXECUTION..........IT COULD NOT BE FORSEEN, WHAT NEW CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS OF POWER MIGHT BE INDISPENSABLE TO EFFECTUATE THE GENERAL OBJECTS OF THE CHARTER; restrictions and specifications, which at present, might seem salutary,....the public interests, should require......"this constitution...
IT IS THE CASE, THEN, AND NOT THE COURT, THAT GIVES THE JURISDICTION.
OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES 9 WHEAT 738, 6 L.ED. 204 (1824)
Jurisdictional question enlarged.
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: "That the Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution....."This clause enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of actingt on it.....asserts his rights...,
The question: "has an injury occurred"? The study of cases 92s2991 gen 4-93-0441, & 76128, shall confirm an injury has occurred.
Further stated: the massive debt of government is a public/personal injury. Lawlessness is a fact. And MANY MORE attempts for change, by the representatives of the people are public/personal injuries. These are the injuries which call for the statements.
LET ME/US VOTE FOR THE ISSUES THEMSELVES, IF I MUST PAY, THEN LET ME/US CHOOSE!
This issue as stated does encompass public health and welfare.
WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.CT. 578, 81 L.ED 703 (1937)
A case of minimum responsibilities
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES: ....It speaks of liberty and prohibits the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. In prohibiting that deprivation the constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty....liberty, SAFEGUARDED IS LIBERTY in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people. Liberty under the constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and IS adopted in the interests of the community is due process. This essential limitatiton of liberty in general governs freedom of contract in particular....fourteenth amendment had been broadly described.
Examined, as a contract: The representatives of the people, being duly elected, have a contract, granted; that a minimum OR BETTER level of economic, civil, police, and military shall be maintained. The distinct realities of DEBT, as a nation, and other areas' HAVE NOT been maintained at minimal levels.
within the personal case; (I am not communist).
DE JONGE V. OREGON 299 U.S. 353, 57 S.CT. 255, 81 L.ED. 278 (1937)
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES: ....conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process....
the public case based upon "a change is needed""
CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES:l ....safeguarding the community....more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, TO THE END THAT GOVERNMENT MAY BE RESPONSIVE TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THAT CHANGES, IF DESIRED, MAY BE OBTAINED BY PEACEFUL MEANS. THEREIN LIES THE SECURITY OF THE REPUBLIC,
THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
MINERSVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT V. GOBITIS 310 U.S. 586M 60 S.CT. 1010, 84 L.ED. 1375 (1940)
A case of "conflicting claims of liberty and authority".
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER: ....Except where the transgression of constitutional liberty is too plain for arguement, personal freedom is best maintained so long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed when it is ingrained in a peoples' habits and not enforced against popular policy by the coercion of adjudicated law.
MR. JUSTICE STONE: ....The constitution....It is also an expression of faith and a command that freedom of mind and spirit must be preserved, which government must obey, if it is to adhere to that justice and moderation without which no free government can exist.
EUCLID V. AMBLER REALITY CO. 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.CT. 114, 71 L.ED. 303 (1926)
A case about changing conditions
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND: ...."while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise..."
IN CONCLUSION: OUR GUARANTEE, that those WORDS which WE, the American people ACCEPT AS VALID, for protecting, supporting, and submitting to, HAVE BEEN HARRASSED by misinterpretation, and outright denial!
My own case examines th obstruction to justice, and the myriad obstacles, that constitutional doctrines and the people who made them DEMAND, this should never be.
The Declaration of Independence says it best: ...."we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable RIGHTS; that among these, are LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.....and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
The common remark, "WHAT CAN I DO?" Becomes the common DEMAND: ADMINISTER JUSTICE, OR RELINQUISH THE RIGHT, OR YOU WILL BE REPLACED!
THE VAST MAJORITY, ARE THE GOVERNMENT!
Within court decisions that are common, IS THE REALITY, the court wishes and DOES: "MAKE AN EXAMPLE" out of individual cases. There is perhaps NO GREATER DENIAL OF JUSTICE, THAN THIS. WE ARE EQUAL, to make anyone pay one penny, or one minute, more than JUSTICE ALLOWS IS ABSOLUTE TYRANNY!
Each is to pay for their own crime, NOT SOMEONE ELSES'
THIS IS CORRUPTION! And its purpose is to destroy the FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY, which is: WE, are each one, EQUAL AND FREE!
Unfortunately, reality requires that RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES MUST BE FOUGHT FOR.
In this country, at this time, we as a people NEED to examine our constitution and our rights and "CLEAN HOUSE"!
Nothing works better than "turning on the lights, opening the doors, and being TRUTHFUL about whatever we find"!
REMEMBER, WE THE PEOPLE, (VAST MAJORITY) ARE THE LAW (BY VOTE).
Summation of the personal case: It is my distinct opinion the car was either damaged when badly overheated by the plaintiff (possibly causing a bearing race to slip) OR was tampered with! NEITHER is my fault!
It is my desire to be FAIR in literal terms. Being FAIR MEANS being fair to me, as well!