1111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS

CASE 94-2001

A WRIT OF RIGHT

1. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action based upon

DUE PROCESS DENIED

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The right to be PROPERLY INFORMED, prior to court proceedings.

The TEST; Did the Plaintiff in curcuit court case 92s2991 CHARGE THE DEFENDENT with fraud in the Subpoena, clearly and decisively, or in the case itself .

The DEMAND; Failure to charge, cannot result in a JUDGEMENT of fraud; ERASE that judgement.

AUTHORITY; a United States Constitutional question, Amendments 6 & 14 "right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation".

2. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon

Judicial impartiality.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does the law allow, a sitting judge, presiding over a case, be both prosecutor and judge of said case, during judgement.

The TEST; Can a judge find a defendant guilty of a crime he has NOT been charged with? As applied to case 92s2991.

The DEMAND; Issue the Statue and substantiate the law. REVERSE the decision.

AUTHORITY; A Constitutional question, state of illinois, section 2. and section 12.

AUTHORITY;' Constitution of united states, amendments 6 and 14.

3. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon LIBEL.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does a sitting judge, ACCUSED of stepping away from his bench, to become the prosecutor, during trial judgement, case 92s2991, LOSE his claim to impartial (becoming as a public citzen during those minutes), and thereby , his protection from retribution.

The TEST; Does BIAS; failure to uphold DUE PROCESS, determine a personal attack? Therefore NOT a judicial act.

The DEMAND; Establish the Boundary between personal attack and a judicial act.

AUTHORITY; A constitutional question United States, article 3, section 1. "during good behavior".

4. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon

DUE PROCESS

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does procedure as applied to supreme court rules 341-344, found within gen 4-93-0441, exceed the court authority, as used, and deny a citizens' right to demand justice, within fundamental principles and clear but simple phraseology.

The TEST; Was the right to Due Process involved within the appeals process, as seen within gen 4-93-0441, fundamental justice, or a denial of equal protection under the law, or a corruption.

The DEMAND; Establish the boundary between justice and procedure.

The AUTHORITY; Constitutional question, State of Illonis, sections 1,2,12,20,23,24

Constitution United States, establish justice,.....secure the blessings of liberty. Amendment 14.

5. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon ESTABLISHING JUSTICE, AND INSURING DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does a state supreme court have the right to ignore a constitutional question.

The TEST; Does the question, distinctly and clearly demanding a constitutional answer, as seen in case 76128, applied to civil suit 92s2991, deserve an answer? Does the LAW demand an answer?

The DEMAND; Establish the law, and keep it.

AUTHORITY; An Oath of office issue, "the constitution is first".

Constitution, state of illinois, sections 1,2,12,20,23,24

Constitution, United States, Amendments 6, "to be informed"

14, "due process", and 9, "Equal".

6. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Does the public citizen have the right to pose a constitutional question, "in order to form a more perfect union," and expect the court to answer within constitutional doctrines.

The TEST; IS DEMOCRACY, BY THE PEOPLE OR NOT?

The DEMAND; ISSUE a clear concise determination answering the question, as posed, within said documents of this case 94-2001, that being, "the opportunity for the people(public) to directly control, the major factors, which influence their lives, by ONE PERSON ONE VOTE, is ready".

AUTHORITY; A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ,UNITED STATES," WE THE PEOPLE........."

7. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon JUSTICE DENIED.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Defined as a SIMPLE WARRANTY CASE 92s2991 exceeds the right of the court, to issue said judgement. Defined as a SIMPLE DUE PROCESS CASE gen 4-93-0441 exceeds the right of the court to refuse judgement. Defined as a SIMPLE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION CASE 76128 exceeds the right of the court, based upon their Oath of office, to issue denial without comment.

The TEST; Define case 92s2991, define case 4-93-0441, define case 76128, in clear understandable english, for the common citizen, WITHIN the common demand for justice, describing clearly WHERE WAS IT.

The DEMAND; $1,000,000.00 one million dollars from/by the State of Illinois, over and above current expenditures, for use in, "Corruption of the court cases".

AUTHORITY; Constitution state of illinois, preamble sections 1,2,12,17-19(discrimination against the poor), 20,23,24

Constitution, united states; establish justice, amendments 6, & 14.

8. This pleading shall construct a civil rights case Based upon A MOCK INQUIRY.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; A judicial inquiry board, of the state of illinois, with NO authority.

The TEST; Does the judicial inquiry board, as instituted by the state of illinois, constitute a true mechanism for the protection of the common citizen, from illegal judicial actions?

The DEMAND; Establish a true judicial inquiry board, for the common citzen, WITH AUTHORITY. Redefine judicial immunity, as found in order 94-2001, january 11,1994, or abolish.

AUTHORITY; CONSTITUTION state of illinois, preamble, section 1,2,12,20,23,24

CONSTITUTION, United States, "...establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty..."

9. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon DENIAL IS PERSECUTION.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Refusal of the lower court to acknowledge a continuence of trial, civil suit, through a higher court, evidence refused, defendant examined.

The test; Citation hearing 92s2991, DOES examination prior to court appeal process rulings, constitute illegal search/invasion of privacy?

The DEMAND; Reasonable judical action regarding disciplinary action, toward judge Harry E. Clem!

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, section 6,2, 20,23.

Constitution, United States, article 4, amendment 14

Declaration of independence; "let the facts be submitted".

10. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon TRYANNY.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The assessment of penalty, case 92s2991. Being based upon illegal procedure, unfounded evidence, and heresay; The judge demands full refund plus interest and during motion trial tells plaintiff, "you could have had more,____".

The TEST; Case 92s2991 examined to determine the extent of injury to the plaintiff, and thereby a FAIR DECISION.

The DEMAND; Establish methods of evaluation by which fair treatment to each party in a courtroom is insured.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble "an orderly government; eliminate poverty and inequality...."

The declaration of independence, united states, "...all men created equal....."

Constitution, United States, ".....establish justice....."

11. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon, RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; A review of gen 4-93-0441 indicates an unjust time allotment to reply to court directives.

The TEST; Is JUSTICE served by MINIMAL OR NO time allotments for compliance to court directives, as applied to gen 4-93-0441.

The DEMAND; Establish NEW Boundaries, and issue compliance procedures at the circuit and appellate court levels, which assure adequate reasonable procedural knowledge, for EVERY LITIGANT, before during and after trial and appeal. And for disciplinary action to the appellate court if UNJUST proven.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, section 1,2,12, 17-19 (discrimination against those without legal training), 20,23.

Constitution, United States, ".....establish justice....." amendment 5, 6,14

12. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon TRYANNY.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Defined by case 4-93-0441, appellate court orders rule 342, 343, were not complied with. Compliance within the alloted time frame results in immediate dismissal based upon, "court rules 341-344."

The TEST; Examine gen 4-93-0441to determine, JUSTICE. Rule upon; Dismissal, exceeds the court demand to the appellant, IS THIS FAIR, based upon, RIGHT TO KNOW.

The DEMAND; Reasonable judicial disciplinary action toward the appellate court judges. Establish the law.

AUTHORITY; A constitutional question, state of illinois, section 1,2,12,20,23,24 and the preamble.

Illinois courts commission rules 3,5,11

Constitution, United States, ...."establish justice....secure the blessings of liberty..."

Amendments 5,6,14

13. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon BIAS.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The poor (unable to afford an attorney) or those lacking a formal legal education are routinely denied, through procedural formalities, cases 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, 76128, order 94-2001, and cases, "memorandum of law."

The TEST; Evaluation of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, for the purpose of justice; case 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, 76128, order jan 11, 1994, 94-2001.

The DEMAND; Structure suitable EQUAL PROTECTION, for the poor, accomplishing justice under law! An apology from the court.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble sections 1,2,12,20,23,24.

Illinois courts commission, rules of procedure; 3,5,11

Constitution, United States, ....."establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for us all...."

amendments 5, 6, 14

Declaration of Independence......"all men created equal"...

14.This pleading shall construct a civil rights action based upon, COMPREHENDIBLE FACTS.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The words and statements of cases 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, 76128, and order 94-2001, are UNDERSTANDABLE, to the common citizen. The issues and simple statements presented therein, represent common knowledge (warranty, due process), and are common dialogue within a JURY TRIAL.

The TEST; Establish the principle of law that notices the difference between material and wording suitable to a jury, which can be dismissed by a judge.

The DEMAND; Accept JUSTICE, WITHIN FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES, Re-estabilish the use of, "ordinary, plain and concise" rule 5, and "simple and summary" rule 11 of the illinois courts commission, rules of procedure.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble, section 4, as applied to ..."the truth...shall be a sufficient defense..."

sections 1(to do the best, he/she can) ,2,12,17-19 (discrimination issue), 20,23,24.

Constitution, United states, ...."establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, secure the blessings of liberty...."

amendment 6,14

Declaration of Independence.

15. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon CHARGES OF CORRUPTION.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The myraid of grievences associated with the several courts involved in this case 94-2001 have instigated the following action.

15A. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon, A COALITION OF PRINCIPLES (JUDGES), against the Public good.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; REview of gen 4-93-0441 and 76128, clearly establish equal protection of the law, WAS ABANDONED, substantive review of each higher court case CLEARLY INDICATES THE JUDGE OR JUDGES, of the lower court in trouble.

The TEST; Establish whether JUSTICE, or protection of the lower court judge was best being served, within the reality of choices, cases 4-93-0441 and 76128.

The DEMAND; ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES WHEREIN INSTANT DISMISSAL OCCURS FOR UNETHICAL JUDICAL DECISIONS. Establish an effective judicial inquiry board, for the common citizen.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, Sections 1,2,12,20,23,24 preamble.

Rules of procedure, illinois courts commission rule 5, 11.

Constitution, United States, ..."establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, ....."

Declaration of independence, ...."mock trail"...

15.B. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon FINAL AUTHORITY.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; It is said the Supreme court demands final authority over the constitution and its interpretation. The Constitution DECLARES; WE THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union,.......and secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES, AND OUR POSTERITY.....!

The TEST; In a Democracy, DOES A VOTE BY THE MAJORITY, on specific issues of major importance,CONSTITUTE TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL, one person, one vote RULE!

The DEMAND; " the opportunity for the public to control is ready"!

A CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION?

15.c. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon DENIAL OF INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; The use of a foreign language, effectively constitutes denial of access, and tryanny.

The TEST; ALL language is interpreted, and thereby the same. Use of a foreign language in law or legal statements or court actions or order, constitutes an unfair barrier, to the law, and thereby to justice.

The DEMAND; ALL Court proceedings, ALL law must be accomplished within the language of the land, and exception may only involve a specific instance of language barrier, between litigants.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble, sections 1 through 24

THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE AND UNDERSTAND IS DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY.

CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES, ....."ESTABLISH JUSTICE....." Amendments 5, 6, 14.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; ....."CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED......."

15.d. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon JUDICIAL IMMUNITY, an unsupported unconstitutional wrong.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; NOT all courtroom acts are judicial acts.

The TEST; Define absolute, as found within order Jan 11, 1994, page 3 case #94-2001

The DEMAND; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".... Establish justice.

AUTHORITY; DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The DEMAND; Establish immunity CLEARLY DEFINED by CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE.

AUTHORITY; Virginia bill of rights, section 2,3,4,7,15

Constitution, United States, article 3; ....."shall hold their office during good behavior...."

16. This pleading shall construct a constitutional Rights case Based upon FULL DUE PROCESS.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Defined by cases 92s2991, gen 4-93-0441, and 76128. The due process denied, and subsequent denial of appeal, and subsequent denial of a constitutional question DIRECTLY RELATING to said cases, DOES NOT constitute a DE NOVO trial.

The TEST; Examine cases 92s2991, 4-93-0441, and 76128, for evidence, as applied to the wording, order 94-2001.

The DEMAND; Constitutional Right, is an examination of constitutional law and decree,RESULTING IN JUSTICE: institute summary dismissal of judgement 92s2991, aquitting the defendant, based upon denial of due process. ERECT judicial authority, as JUSTICE SERVED, NOT procedural denial.

AUTHORITY; Constitution, state of illinois, preamble, section 1,2,12,20.23,24.

Constitution United States, ......"establish justice ......secure the blessings of liberty...." Amendments 5,6,14

Declaration of Independence ....."a mock trial...."

Rules of procedure, Official illinois courts commission, rule 5, ....."shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language...."

rule 11 ....."shall be simple and summary as may reasonably be...."

Virginia bill of rights; section 3 and 15

AN INQUIRY

is hereby demanded, prior to., initiating trial 94-2001, regarding order received, filed Jan 11, 1994.

PURPOSE; TO DETERMINE BIAS.

The QUESTION; REFERENCE TO criminal

The TEST; page 6, of the "four volumes" clearly defines the trial, the only trial, 92s2991 was about a car, the subpoena, reproduced in the record, "four volumes" clearly defines, car warranty issue, an assumption has been made by this federal court that a criminal charge can exist within the context of the plaintiffs charge, "The car ran fine, until I overheated it; then the defendant paid for the motor (half), I accepted as full payment; then the defendant fixed the motor for me, at no charge; then I owned the car for a year and a half, and something is wrong again!"

Case 92s2991 is undoubtedly about mechanical failure of an automobile, MONTHS after purchase. The case is NOT, by the plaintiffs' charge, about the defendant or his conduct, but a mechanical failure of a car.

The DEMAND; Examine case 92s2991 to determine: IF this was a criminal case, the LAW (RIGHT TO BE INFORMED, RIGHT TO COUNSEL) was broken.

Therefore according to Miranda V. Arizona, this verdict 92s2991 must be overturned, the defendant reimbursed, and case 94-2001 commenced as introduced.

IF this was not a criminal case the ISSUE OF LIBEL is strongly supported.

AUTHORITY; IL court of claims.

Constitution, State Of Illinois, section 2,12,20,23.

Constitution, United States, Amendment 5,6,14

17. This pleading shall construct a civil rights case Based upon EQUAL PROTECTION;

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; case 92s2991, suggests a penalty far exceeding the evidence OR the charge; IS THIS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?

The TEST; Examine, ..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created EQUAL....." IS IT LAWFUL, to "make an example of anyone, by inflicting a penalty exceeding the norm, for that offense."

The DEMAND; ...."laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them (the people) shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness......" EQUAL PROTECTION MEANS EQUAL PUNISHMENT! Establish, Equality through JUSTICE.

AUTHORITY; Declaration of Independence

Virginia Bill of Rights, sections 1,3,14,15.

Constitution United States, ....."provide for the common defense....."

Constitution, state of illinois, Preamble,

section 1. Inherent and inalienable rights.

section 2. Due process and equal protection.

section 12 Right to remedy and justice.

section 23. Fundamental principles.

AND IN CONSIDERATION OF/FOR THE "PUBLIC LITIGANT"

18. This pleading shall construct a civil rights action Based upon INALIENABLE RIGHTS.

The CAUSE OF GRIEVENCE; Failure of the United States Government to; (change with the times) TRUST the men and women of this country to be sufficient of themselves, in electing by one person/ one vote, the president of this nation.

The TEST; Has Education, Communication, and the honest Vote, changed; thereby making the Electoral college OBSOLETE.

The DEMAND; REPEAL amendment 12, ...."vote...choice of electors...", RATIFIED july 27,1804, United States Constitution, and TRUST the citizens, giving them their rightful station: A VOTE THAT IS HONEST AND TRUE, majority rule.

Revise amendment 14, ....."vote....choice of electors..."

AUTHORITY; Constitution, United States, ...."secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

amendment 14, 19,....."vote shall not be denied or abridged...." 24,26.

Declaration of Independence, ...."all men created equal...governments...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends....."

Virginia Bill of Rights; ... which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

sections 1,2,3,4,6,7,14,15.

In view of the magnitude of public issues and the Reality; the plaintiff is NOT a lawyer.

I, JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR, DO hereby submit these issues addressed within case 94-2001, require significant legal knowledge, to properly protect the public interest and therefore, DO, hereby make my request for legal counsel, to be provided by the state, for all matters perceived as a public, or criminal interest.

the court has noted these proceedings are filed in, forma pauperis, and therefore the plaintiff MUST depend upon the Court for Justice, and EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

case 94-2001

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS

POWELL V. ALABAMA 53 SCt 55, 287 US 45, 77LEd 158 (1932) The court declared that; The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel..... The failure of the trial court to make an EFFECTIVE appointment of counsel, was a denial of due process within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.

As applied to case 92s2991 and order 94-2001 filed Jan 11, 1994, page 3, "a copy of C.D.I.L. RULE 2.12, " pretrail procedures in prisoner cases." and its pleadings.

JOHNSON V. ZERBST 58 SCt 1019, 304 US 458, 82 LEd 1461 (1938) ".... that the trial judge has the serious and weighty responsibilty ....... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused."

As applied to; Request for counsel 94-2001, and its pleadings.

MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 86 SCt 1602, 384 US 436, 16 LEd 2d 694 (1966) The court extended the protections of the fifth and fourteenth amendments..... that he has the right to the presence of an attorney; and that if he cannot afford an attorney, one must be appointed for him.

As applied to; representation of the public issues involved in 94-2001 and its pleadings.

MUNN V. ILLINOIS 94 US 113,24 LEd 77 (1877) Declaring "public has a direct and positive interest".....and because it is, "clothed with the Public Interest".

As applied to; Due process, legal representation for the public, as a direct litigant in the pleadings 94-2001, through constitutional and public pleadings.

The court is RE-directed to the citations pages 44-65 of the "four volumes", for further memorandum of law.

The conclusionary statements of pages 66-69 may be re-interpreted as: INHERENT RIGHTS OF DEMOCRATIC, FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Represented within the "four volumes" is to be recognized; "these words reflect the common citizens outcry for justice, the words and methods of the majority, and the impact of judicial interpretation and action upon the common citizen.

This submission of a ":proper complaint", is accompanied by, "the common citizens outcry for justice" which says virtually the same thing, only the format is different, and is expected to be used in conjuction with pleadings 13 & 14 of case 94-2001 with the following memorandum of law.

BOEGER VS. BOEGER,147 ill.app.3rd 629, 498 n.e. 2d 814,101 ill.dec.490- (second district 1986), the court in referring to the Appellant's pro se brief stated:

The brief in the present case is clearly inadequate. It contains no summary of points and authorities and no fact statement as such. The section entitled "argument" consists of a rambling, often disjointed recitation of facts, often with no apparent relevance to the present litigation. It contains no indication of what, exactly, are Appellant's objections to the trial court's ruling and contains no citation of authority. The remainder of the brief consists of photocopies of various documents, many taken from the record in this cause. Their relevance to Defendant's argument is not explained.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal.

2. In WAITCUS VS. VILLAGE OF GILBERTS, 199 ill.App.3rd 102, 556 n.e.2d 1261, 145 ill.dec.359 (second district 1990), the court found the Appellant's brief lacking and stated regarding a portion of the brief:

This section of the brief is filled with conclusion and bits of facts but is totally devoid of any citation to case or statutory authority. In addition, no attempt at coherent arguement is made. This section of the brief is entirely inadequate and we consider the contentions raised therein to be waived.

3. In the case APPLICATION OF ANDERSON, 162 ill.app.3rd 815, 516 N.E.2d 860, 114 ill.Dec. 705 (second district 1987), the court pointed out:

An appellant may not make a point merely by stating it without presenting arguments in support of it, and this court will not argue a case for an appellant. A court of review is entitled to have briefs submitted that are articulate, organized, and present cohesive legal argument in conformity with supreme court rules. Any issue which has not been adequately presented to this court for review may be deemed waived. (citations omitted)

4. In BRITT VS. FEDERAL LAND BANK ASS'N. OF ST. LOUIS, 153 ill.app.3d 605, 505 N.E.2d 387, 106 ill.dec. 81 (second district 1987), the court commented:

While purporting to cite authority, generally, for what is set forth in their briefs as issues on appeal, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with supreme court rule 341(e) (7). We do not view the inclusion of citations to irrelevant authorities scattered throughout their brief to constitute even an attempt to comply with the rule. In fact, Plaintiffs' briefs are nothing more than a compilation of disjointed and nonsensical claims and legal conclusions totally unsupported by citations to the record or relevant legal authority. We may treat the issues raised as having been wiaved for failure to cite authority.

A Declaration of finanicial position of, James F. Osterbur, june 20,1994.

current account balance approx $1200.00

includes a gift received from Frank and Lucille Osterbur of $1000.00 in the 1994 year.

tax liabilities include:

earned income in 1993, $4730.65

taxed income in 1993, $2380.60

included in income is a gift from Frank and Lucille Osterbur for 1993, in the amount of $2000.00

currently working for room and board.

possessions include:

1 1985 S-10 pickup roughly $2000.00

1 20-25 year old bicycle

1 office desk and chair purchased 20 yrs ago for $300.00

1 1960's vintage boat 16' homemade conversion, roughly $2000.00

less than $500.00 (new price) hand tools and parts

1 timbersaw homemade total monetary investment roughly $500.00

1 electric hydraulic scaffolding homemade, total monetary investment roughly $500.00

1 gas forklift homemade conversion total monetary investment $300.00

Each of these 3 homemade units represents a machine capable of causing injury and as such, present very serious liability concerns if sold. My dad also has an investment in each machine.