UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COURT

OSTERBUR, JAMES V. STATE OF ILLINOIS

A WRIT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY

CASE # 94-2001

FILED IN Danville Federal court 1/4/94

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Transcribed from handwritten)

Cause of action page 1 (pages refer to handwritten pages), review and intent to prove 2-4, demand 5, examination of 92-s-2991 6-11, substantive review 92-s-2991 12-17, examination of 4-93-0441 17-20, substantive review 4-93-0441, examination of judicial review 23, Substantive review judicial inquiry board 24, examination of #76128 25,26, Damage done 27, substantive review 76128 28-31, fundamental change 32-38, right to be informed 39-41, contempt by the court 41-43, citations and relevant issues 44-65, conclusion 66-68, reality 69, summation (personal) 70, documents sent to judicial inquiry board (with transcript) 71-80, evidence law, followed by initial appeal, court documents record, evidence transcripts record.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COURT

JAMES F. OSTERBUR V. STATE OF ILLINOIS

Cause of action: FAILURE of the government of the state of Illinois to provide, "the fundamental right of justice through the Ill courts system, that system being the circuit court, appellate court, and the state supreme court." "Therefore change is necessary!"

A review of case Cole v. Osterbur Champaign 92-s-2991/ gen 4-93-0441/ 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; the state provided judicial inquiry board is insufficient to its task. 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, to be used by/ from the state of ill, for the 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 cases described, requesting jury trial in federal court and shall present evidence as follows. examination of the small claims complaint; ...for a 82 buick skylark.. The judges decision; for the taped record...notices the definition of fraud. This case 92-s-2991 was about a car and monetary reimbursement, judgment 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; pg 6 line 3,4 Q. when did you purchase.....A. pg 6 line 5-10. It was in march of 91. Q. last year was 92 ma'am. Warranty evaluation is over 18+ months of personal ownership by the plaintiff of said vehicle. Judgment is based ; pg 76 line 2-6...statements of a qualified mechanic...! At issue: mechanics testimony pg 51 line 3-8 examined on nov 10, 92. representing a time lapse of 20 months (roughly) and several thousand miles and maintainance 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 line 16-22 .....no ridge at the top...A. 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 15 line 10-12 pg 16 line 1-4 and pg 16 line 20-22. Defendant testifies pg 68 line 8-13. At issue; plaintiff states pg 16 line 13-19 ....hose....! Defendant testifies pg 68 line 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 & more). A manufacturers defect or tampering IS NOT my responsibility. pg 65 line 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 line 17-24 ....I did NOT guarantee it. pg 67 line 1-10 ...I gave her....pg 9 line 24.....he gave me $300....and 2 weeks later pg 9 line 4-17 ....defendant fixes vehicle. POINT OF FACT; damage inflicted by the plaintiff (running the car without coolant) described herein . VOIDS all GM new car warranties! AT ISSUE: must I , the defendant provide greater coverage than the industry standard? Examination of the case; pg 45 line 22-24 ....why did it take 18 months...pg 46 line 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-JUDGMENT by demanding (time constraints are common in all warranty issues) are irrelevant. The only possible conclusion, the judge has already determined guilt, and pronounced judgment 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 herasey used against the defendant pg 75 line 23-24 .....the witnesses who aren't hear....and pg 62 line 7-19. At issue: slander pg 75 line 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. pg 60 line6-8. The court; any questions you want to ask him about his testimony ma'am? Plaintiff responds; NO sir. Testimony by defendant pg 61 line 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 line 8-16! Pg 61 line 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 pg 2 line 8-19 refused to acknowledge 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 cash bond....! Judgment was for $1290 total. Judge requires $210 MORE than judgment. At issue ; is the requirement of more than judgment; 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 8/28/03. Leaving Sunday a religious day and 3 and a half possible working days, (1) more day for return mail. The result JUSTICE is dependant upon formal knowledge of rule 342 & 343 existed. Justice would be dismissed within 3 and a half working days, after notice is received, based upon "rule 342 & 343, if not complied to". An examination of rule 342; appendix to the brief, shall include a copy of the judgment.....notice of appeal, and a complete table of contents....(1) the nature of each document (2) in case of ....date of filing (3) the names... An examination of rule 343; times for filing and servicing briefs; (a) time appellant shall file within 35 days....(c) extending or shortening time.....amended 9/1/74. Il supreme court....when the appellant fails to file 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 prejudice), or fair (concerned with equality and right)? NO dissention is made as to the need for all pertinent materials. However the issue is 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 & 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) ...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 & 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, 93 and its subsequent brief mailed sept 1, 93 (one day, before judgment occurred) 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 this case

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT HAVE BEEN ATTACKED.

An examination of judicial inquiry board nov 23, 93 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 consitution and the laws of the United States. At issue: DEFINE? Does this judiciary comply?

An examination of supreme court case 76128 petition for leave to appeal, denied. Dated 12/1/93: mandate issued to the appellate court 12/23/93 NO cause, NO reason, NO law, NO appeal within the state of IL. 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 constitutional RIGHT to due process; supported within the trial by reproducible 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 & 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 judgment. 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 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 LEGISLATURE, and EXECUTIVE BRANCH and made its own rules superior to justice or law!

The reality of living: JUSTICE, is greater than law, and law if 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 1^st pg. Testimony identifying specific evidence plaintiff received what the defendant sold pg 2. Specific contract issues identified which were discarded. proper and reasonable evidence stating defendants character pg 5. And considerable proof provided. Within the brief 9/1/93 Identification of CLEAR, IMPROPER and BIASED , 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 PLUNDERING OF CONSITUTIONAL DECREES AND MANDATES, within the judicial system of the state of Ill has occurred!

Those decrees in part are; Declaration of Independence/ 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 supreme court has declared: "they are the final authority"! The consititution 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 US 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 include: environmental compliance, the budget equation, freedoms that affect how, why, & 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 cannot be expressed, unless, the words and expressions are limited.

The definitions 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 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 hereby 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 issues arises again at , ________years)! Preliminary voting determines a single description, the vote is yes or no, ( preliminary voting means, by the people). It cannot be democratic unless: fundamental principles/ fundamental restraints/ the right of choice/ and a reliance upon. 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 available legal assistance (lawyers), available 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 arguments 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 & 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 contitutes "substantial failure"? For the public; when the issues and action 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 ILL 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

schechter poultry corp v. United states 295 US 495

question involves "codes of fair competition".

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 not at liberty to transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extra constitutional 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 a "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

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 he 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 constittutional 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? AT 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 judicial 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 vote, 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

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 issues myself". The (judges') 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 revolutionaries. But the 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 is then; do the american people have a legal right to ask; let us have our vote, and as a consequence determine the major influences that are to be a part of our lives?

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 or 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 not delegated ....nor prohibited by it are reserved.....to the people."

AT ISSUE; "the powers not delegated". Examined at "its own test"; from

CITATION

Martin [Fairfax's Devisee] v. Hunters' lessee 1 wheat 304

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 competent 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. The 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 foreseen, 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

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 acting on it....asserts his rights.....

THE QUESTION; "Has an injury occurred"? The study of cases 92-s-2991/ gen 4-93-0441/ supreme 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 US 379

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 limitation 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 area's HAVE NOT been maintained at minimal levels. Within the personal case; (I am not communist)

DeJonge V. Oregon 299 US 353

Chief Justice Hughes: ......conviction upon a charge not made would be sheer denial of due process...[.this public case based upon "a change is needed"] Chief Justice Hughes: ....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 that 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 US 586

a case of "conflicting claims of liberty and authority"

Mr. Justice Frankfurter:......except where the transgression of constitutional liberty is too plain for argument , 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 US 365

a case about changing conditions

Mr Justice Sutherland: ......" while the meaning of constitutional guarantee 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 HARASSED by misinterpretation, and outright denial! My own case examines the 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, and within the constitutional documents)

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!

AN ITINERARY OF BIAS Case 92-s-2991 presiding judge harry e. clem

This case is well documented through "the notice of an appeal filed may 20,93/ the appellate court documents filed sept 1, 93/ and the prayer for leave to appeal filed at the state supreme court, docketed and awaiting session". Area's not fully defined; why wasn't the lawsuit filed when the car allegedly quit". Plaintiff states again: this case was presented as an extended warranty case : NOTHING ELSE. No warranty; if issued, would have expired and clearly indicates in court, the same, pg 71 trial transcript 4/21/93 line 10 Q; are you a certified mechanic? This question goes to the quality of work and in no possible way suggests the work was not done. The issue of warranty was denied: "the motor was notably leaking yet the plaintiff drove it 15 miles farther". The judge directs this order by placing his hand over the microphone and orders the defendant not to pursue, or the fact that money was accepted.

Defendants motion was dismissed without reading: even though the motion clearly indicates an oral contract was initiated and was accepted by Ms. Cole. Hearing on citation pg 2 line 1-21 confrontation is evident; supremacy of the state supreme court is denied. Refusal to acknowledge evidence sent prior to citation hearing. Refusal to acknowledge presented by the defendant in court. Refusal to allow defendant testimony as allowed by the rules of a motion trial, judge elects to proceed. Failure to follow standard procedure identified above indicates, "illegal search and seizure and a violation of privacy laws. Motion hearing to stop judgment clearly defines prejudice pg 2 line 20,21. a cash bond of $1500 required, Judgment in this case was $1290 total. Yet I am required to post $210 more than I am at risk to lose is this fair? Or having already examined me, is this another indication of prejudice for the plaintiff

The appellate court shall be dealt with through issues raised at the state supreme court gen 4-93-0441, now 76128 and state supreme court gen #4-93-0839 just sent. NOTED; and hereby testified to, the ad in question which was NOT read until the court issued its statement pg 72 line 3-7 [read pg 74 line 15,16] WAS NOT the ad placed over the phone by the defendant. The defendants ad should have read, (was dictated as) "newly rebuilt motor, recently rebuilt transmission, cv joints, and front brakes, etc." Upon seeing the ad in print the paper was notified by phone to change the ad (correct it) but I mentioned the car sold and they did not do it (change the ad). It is suspected the receptionist tried to save me some expense, even though I told her it was important. This ad sheet is produced once a week, I did not see the ad until nearly a week later and called at that point. James F. Osterbur

NOTED; and hereby testified to, the mechanics testimony of 20 months after the fact was expected to be heard as "20 months after the fact" and several thousand miles usage." That fact limited examination by the defendant to relevant issues, NOT heresy . It is common practice to rebuild this GM motor with its original head bolts. James F. Ostebur

NOTED; and hereby testified to, judge uses illegal procedure pg 57 after order to stricken, microphone noise exists on tape (places hand over it, orders "NO warranty or money paid issues". Defendant states DID interfere with cross-examination, a defendants right. James F. Osterbur

NOTED: and hereby testified to: this was an extended warranty case ANY notable indication that the term fraud, could or would possibly be used would have resulted in the defendant bringing live witness's to verify; rebuilding took place! There was NONE, as the common citizen might perceive James F. Osterbur

A simple summary A dispute involving a car purchase 18 months prior to summons. summons & plaintiff declare warranty issue; judge changes to fraud issue returns full price of car (plus the $300 already paid).

Post trial motion indicates basic interaction "she could have anything she asked for"/ defendants motion NOT read, questioned ; "Judge says; want justice get a lawyer"!

Citation hearing refuses evidence or testimony from defendant/ post trial motion to stop judgment allowed but forced to put up $210 more than judgment.

CITATIONS USED HEREIN

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

section 2 due process and equal protection; no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

section 6. searches, seizures, privacy and interceptions; the people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or ......

Section 12 RIGHT to remedy and justice; Every person shall find a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries and wrongs which he receives to his person, privacy, property or reputation. He shall obtain justice by law, freely, completely, and promptly.

CL.3 OATH OF OFFICE, ETC ART 6 Note 8 REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY OATH ....... The first duty assumed by each judge under his oath of office is to support the federal and state constitutions;....the court of necessity enforce the constitution . State v. Jud first nat'l bank 202 NW 391

Commentary THE JUDICIARY, John R. Schmidhauser The judiciary as evolved in the western legal tradition is often described as an institution that resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures......the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibility for safeguarding economic rights, such as contract or property, and protecting noneconomic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion......These attributes contain fundamental components of the ideal conception of a judiciary......issues involving corrupt use of the legal system and the arrogant manner.......

JANOSIK ENCYCLOPEDIA of the American judicial system II KF 154. E 53 1987 V2 COMMON LAW AND COMMON -LAW LEGAL SYSTEMS; source and form of American law. ....the founding fathers. They insisted on a constitution that would be the highest and most fundamental source of American law, and that constitution was reduced to clear writing- a legal document- the authority of which derived not from ancient custom, but from its ratification and acceptance by the people of the several states.... .....thus the famous call for a "sociological jurisprudence and later for legal realism".....shifting the emphasis of legal thought from traditional....called the "pedigree of rules".....to...balancing the interests at stake in lawsuits.......

OFFICIAL ILL COURTS COMMISSION REPORTS KFI 1725.5. D5..A5 1992

rules of procedure these are the rules applied to a judge/ ARE WE NOT EQUAL IN COURT

rule 3 ......SHALL advise.....of his right to file responsive pleading to the charges not less than twenty one days after service of notice upon him......

Rule 5 ....twenty one days.....pleadings. They shall be in ordinary, plain, and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him.

rule 11 the process and procedure.....shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be.....but the allegations of the complaint must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Supreme court rules xx Section A; (4) a judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law,....

Court Rules PREAMBLE the practice of law is a public trust. Lawyers are the trustees of the system by which citizens resolve disputes....deter crime....by working to improve that system.....and by defending the integrity of the judicial system against those who would corrupt, abuse or defraud it......

Fraud or fraudulent, denotes conduct having a purpose to deceive and not merely negligent misrepresentation or failure to apprize another of relevant information.

RULE 2 (a) MISCONDUCT. Misconduct is behavior of an attorney which violates the ILL code of professional responsibility or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or legal profession into disrepute.

RULE 61 a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary

RULE 62 a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities (a) a judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.......public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges...

RULE 63 A judge should preform the duties of his office impartially and diligently A (1) a judge should be faithful to the law....

RULE 343 times for filing and serving briefs

RULE 344 number of copies, service, and form and method of reproduction of briefs and abstracts

92-s-2991 small claim complaint I ....in the sum of $1200 for ... a car, 82 buick skylark, sold, that was advertised as having new motor, almost new transmission, brakes, cv joints etc. This car lasted approximately 10 mo's . After 4 mo's motor (heads ) went bad, defendant came to fix it agreed it would need a new motor and gave $300 back, to go half on new motor. After defendant fixed heads, 2 months later motor quit, transmission went out and brakes are bad.

4-93-0441 appellate court/ "Appellant ruled to show cause, on or before 9.02/93, why appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file brief as required by rules 342 and 343. Failure to comply with these rules will result in dismissal of appeal."

ORDER; In response to a rule.......does not comply with rule 341 through 344 concerning the form and content of briefs, the manner of filing, and the number of copies.... also fails to provide citations....or a coherent factual background......in view of substantial failure.....dismissed for failure to comply with supreme court rules. 9/2/93

Judicial inquiry board; ...... The board has only limited authority......cannot intervene....review....take action against....has no jurisdiction...will not engage in debate.....the board ...does so by filing that complaint with the courts commission, ...the board then serves as prosecutor........is a very real, if intangible, benefit.

76128 state supreme court; DENIED

circuit clerk $1200 judgment money/ $90 court costs/ $72 interest (9% April- December) $1362 total 4/26/93

4/26/93 Motion for turnover of evidence

I believe the motor and transmission were tampered with. I clearly said so during the trial. I told the plaintiff and her boyfriend, I would soon be picking up the car and asked her where it was located (immediately) after the trial. She told me it was located where she lived and made NO indication it would be a problem. I went to a chemical engineer Ed Perkins at the U of I and arranged for testing of oil residues on April 30, 93 his earliest date available, and arranged for other services to pick up the car for me. On April 23 Friday the boyfriend calls and wants the money and is going to haul the car away. I plainly tell him I will pay at the last legal day possible, 30 days from the date, barring continuances and I will be picking up the car on April 30, 93. and clearly told he NO car, NO money! I NOW OWN that car, he complains, says no. James F. Osterbur (The judge says to her, in court, its your car do anything you like with it)

NOTICE OF AN APPEAL 92-s-2991

whereas; a judgment has been filed against the defendant, jim Osterbur, that shall be shown herein to be IMPROPER, BIASED, AND SLANDEROUS to said cause.

Beginning with the summons filed oct 2, 92; comes the claim for warranty evaluation, a summons follows nov 9, 92. SPECIFICALLY there is no mention of, "by factual statement" that I, jim Osterbur the defendant is / would be accused of fraud by the plaintiff. IN FACT, said plaintiff, NEVER accused myself, the defendant at any time by direct statement of fraud. It will be brought up later. Returning to the evidence; pg 6 line 3-10 the car was purchased in march of 91, over 18 months prior to her filing a complaint in Oct 92. Upon attempting questioning that applies to warranty pg 45,46 clearly define what I believe to be BIASED proceedings. The plaintiff testifies pg 10 line 6 and then line 8 she waited over 1 year after the decision to take me, the defendant to court, has been made line 18. the question remains why? Plaintiff gives testimony regarding her decision to inflict damage to the motor (damaged; in such a way and manner that is EXCLUDED in all new car warranties) QUOTE: engine damage from running you engine without coolant isn't covered by your warranty; 1992 General Motors Corp.

Testimony begins pg 15 line 10 SPECIFIC to this testimony is the question and answer, pg 16 line 19-22, and pg 16 line 1,2. Testimony continues pg 17 line 4-14 discredits plaintiffs selection of mechanical advise. Testimony pg 17 lines 13-24 clearly show the motor specifically the cylinder walls were in "like new" condition. Further testimony such as pg 52 line 8-24, pg 53 line 1,2 are hereby declared null and void as they describe conditions that appear over 1 year (pg 10 line 6, then pg 51 line 8) later. Issues such as mileage were avoided within compliance to the court directive pg 46 line 6. Issues that affected "my decision" not to call the machinist to give testimony pg 62 line 7-11 are MONEY. to request travel time, failure to be at his work, WOULD cost money! Pg 19 line 5-9 clearly indicates, reimbursement is highly unlikely. Pg 62 lines 12-14 simply acknowledge close family as "seen by others" as not being impartial. Further; the law is CLEAR, regarding warranty issues. WARRANTY as defined by GM on rebuilt motors (their rebuilt motors) pg 56, line 24 is 12 months or 12000 miles whichever comes first. This alone according to law (in my opinion) was enough to cause dismissal of this case before trial occurred.

The trial was granted without a motion for dismissal because pg 21 line 15-18 indicates a weapon, specifically the threat of a weapon, coupled with an angry person pg 20, line 9-10 deserves to be incriminated in court, should foul play occur after a judgment against the plaintiff. Simple evidence is needed. Evidence continued; pg 64-67 define the defendants explanation of the events which lead to offering the plaintiff $300 for the specific purpose of finding someone else. By relieving any/ all obligation which could be attributed to me, as described by pg 67 line 1-5, and substantiates pg 21 line 8-9. Throughout the proceeding there can be NO doubt as to what the $300 was for, NOR that it was accepted within the CERTAIN knowledge of an agreement regarding motor replacement. Testimony pg 23 line 2-5, concur this was the agreement.

Beyond legal obligations: after paying $300 to alleviate my obligations without the proper and reasonable opportunity to evaluate the motor DUE ENTIRELY to the threatening manner of Richard Adair pg 29 line 9. I returned to again evaluate the car the second time Ms. cole called, pg 67 line 11. At this time a proper evaluation was made AFTER she informed me SHE HAD overheated the motor. The motor was fixed at NO charge except $50 in parts pg 17 line 13-14. pg 31 line 24, pg 32 line 1,2 state the prior mechanical description pg 17 line 6,7 was completely erroneous. Insofar as the issues regarding the transmission and brakes and cv joints are concerned, these things were the responsibility of the owner to divulge correctly. The information I, Jim Osterbur passed along was given to me by the owner's dad/ retired bishop Ehme Osterbur, and I had NO reason to discount that information. Pg 59 does prove the work was done, I am unaware of specifics, "involving the word, recently". Regarding the testimony of Danny Osterbur pg 59 line 20-21 USE of the words, "imagine & probably", further define problems with recently. Pg 61 line 7-16 describe in part how the car was delivered to me. It was "too good a car to just throw away, the transmission was recently rebuilt, and the brakes and the cv joints were replaced, do anything you wish with the car". I elected to rebuild the motor and charged Ms, Cole accordingly. The price is higher that an autozone motor because more work was done to it. I do at this time point out, the first and only reference to transmission or brake mileage appears pg 59 line 21. Ms. Cole is given the opportunity to ask questions pg 60 line 6 and declines, pg 60 line 8. I, the defendant did willfully introduce the problem with mileage that arose regarding the transmission and brakes, fully expecting the judge could & would add/ hear the difference. It was NOT an oversight on my part, rather upon hearing a change, in the story given me, and desiring truth and fair play, I expected to pay a reasonable sum, because of the 20,000 mile difference. To ms cole as what I, had told her was apparently incorrect. pg 61 line 8-15.

Irregardless of actual mileage, I, had personally inspected the car before and after working on the motor to assure myself the transmission and brakes, etc were sound, they were. After fixing the head gasket, I test drove the car to assure myself the motor, transmission, and brakes were in good working order, they were! The beginning of problems was a cut in a new radiator hose pg 63 line 3 and pg 68 line 15-18. PROOF the motor was rebuilt was clearly shown to the plaintiff, pg 69 line 5-15 and again pg 17 line 18-22. PROOF the transmission and brakes were rebuilt, was provided pg 59 line 22-24. PROOF of the exclusion of warranty rights was defined by the dates provided by Ms cole (bought mar 91, summons appears oct 92) a full 18 months after the car was purchased. PROOF a willingness existed on the part of the defendant to provide assistance to the plaintiff upon being notified pg 20 line 9-18 not once, but twice. PROOF the motor was overheated by the plaintiff pg 15 line 10-24, pg 16 line 1-22. PROOF not every mechanics evaluation is correct pg 17 line 9-22. PROOF the desire to control the defendant existed, pg 30 line 4-8. PROOF the defendants mechanical abilities exceeded that of the mechanics computerized list pg 31 line 24, pg 32 line 1,2 as seen within testimony pg 17 line 3-22. PROOF greed was NOT involved in the sale of this car pg 14, line 2-8. PROOF the plaintiff made her own decision and had plenty of opportunity to seek her boyfriends advice or others pg 13 line 14-24. PROOF the plaintiff (her boyfriend) made NO attempt to deal respectfully with the defendant pg 20 line 14-24 pg 21 line 1,2 . PROOF a transaction occurred between the plaintiff and the defendant specifically about the motor. pg 22 line 14-24, (line 24 clearly indicates the extent of the work, although a question raised, was answered pg 72 line 18-21. PROOF the mechanics testimony is irrelevant pg 51 line 1-7 as it clearly indicates inspection occurred 20 months after the car was bought. PROOF an agreement by their mechanic that motors can be destroyed easily pg 52 line7,8, and substantiates the defendants claim to have rebuilt the motor pg 52 line 24 and pg 53 line 1. When properly viewed within the plaintiffs own testimony pg 17 line 19-22. PROOF nothing was hidden by the defendant pg 17 line 15-16. PROOF warranty examination was quashed by the judge, long before testimony by my witness or myself pg 45 line 21-24, pg 46 line 1-7.

Evidence of BIAS pg 19 line 21-24, pg 20 line 1-3 "if there's' something about this incident that involves mr adair, that you think is pertinent you may bring it out". Attempts were made to solicit this testimony pg 19 line 10-16 pg 20,21 line 1-10 (judge quashes every attempt) Direct testimony by the defendant: spelling out pg 21 for the judge involvement by mr. adair, and later as a direct negotiator pg 30, line 4-8. pg 21 line 21-24, pg 22 line 1-12. Every effort to portray the incident as confrontational and thereby a direct result of a preset agenda, described by mr. adair, pg 30 line 6,7. Judge quashes pg 21, line 20-24, pg 22 line 1-12. Defendant declares: all reasonable efforts were made to obtain a fair and satisfactory agreement pg 21 line 11-12. Judge ignores: relevant testimony regarding stated efforts to obtain a fair & satisfactory agreement above pg 21 line 21-24 . Judge declares pg 22 line 8-11. relevant testimony given pg 22 line 15-24 , pg 23 line 1-13. Relevant testimony denied: pg 21 line 21-24 and pg 22 lines 1-12 attempts were being directed toward the inclusion of motive, as to the suspected tampering pg 71 line 1,2. Denial of testimony pg 44 line 4-6 pertinent within the context of motive, tampering and so forth. Denied by judge pg 44 line 14-24 , pg 45 line 1-3. Judge quashes: question specific to warranty issues pg 45 line 22-24, 46 line 1-3 . Defendant asks for a definition pg 46 lines 4,5. Judge enters first judgment in case against defendant pg 46 line 6,7. Evidence of irrelevant testimony: pg 51 line 8 due to inspection occurring 20 months after sale. Substantiation of irrelevant testimony pg 56 line 22 -24. Testimony of closure by defendant pg 67 line 1-6 . Testimony of evidence to tampering pg 68 line 15-22. PROVEN testimony as to the condition of the cylinder walls by defendant pg 69 line 6-16 substantiated by the plaintiff pg 17 line 13-22 as of this date pg 10 line 6,7. pg 10 line 6-7. Testimony regarding further tampering pg 69 line 17-24. Defendants summation pg 70 lines 4-10. Testimony every effort was made to produce a proper repair for the plaintiff in her presence pg 70 line 11-23.

The courts decision pg 73 line 13-20. It was the written opinion of the court, that the motor could be considered as evidence 20 months after purchase, to its inspection date.

(Rebuttal) It is the defendant claim: 20 months after the fact, is too long: therefore testimony by the mechanic in question must be stricken! It is a legal fact: warranties of any kind DO have expiration dates! Therefore the defendant does assert it was unnecessary to incur expense or subpoena witnesses to testify to/ against ILLEGAL testimony. Rather receipts and affidavits CLEARLY were enough!

The courts decision pg 74

Rebuttal: the issue of FRAUD was NEVER brought up during the trial. The defendant asserts: I was never accused by the plaintiff!

Courts decision pg 74 line 10-11

Rebuttal: initial damages were dealt with during trial pg 15 line 10-24, pg 16 line 1-22.

Courts decision pg 74 line 18-20

Rebuttal: the term new motor is interchangeable within the context of a 9 year old car with complete rebuild (to OEM SPECS.). Defendants description pg 71 line 18-24, pg 72 line 1,2.

Courts decision

Rebuttal: the evidence surrounding this decision/ portion of was clearly voluntary by the defendant and was expressed to provide opportunity of reasonable reimbursement because of/ as soon as: the defendant was made aware of a problem.

Courts decision: pg 75 line 14-22

Rebuttal: the defendant made NO false statements at any time! PROOF is in the voluntary and immediate and public statements that relate to the statements in question pg 59,60,61. The defendant asserts he did the best he could with the information at his disposal and sought to voluntarily make amends for misinformation from others. Be it known: the defendants cousin Danny Osterbur was called on at least 2 occasions requesting any/ all receipts regarding said work. However Danny Osterbur was unable to produce the receipts until called to court, due to a change of residence which resulted in lost bookkeeping.

Courts decision;

Rebuttal: relies heavily on testimony of a mechanic who had NOT inspected the car prior to 20 months after purchase was made! Pg 76 line 1-8

courts decision pg 76 line 9-21

Rebuttal: ALL testimony directed or given by the defendant is disregarded.

Docket entry:

Rebuttal: JUDGE ALLOWS 20 MONTHS FREE USE AND ABUSE OF SAID VEHICLE by the plaintiff. (And gives her the car)

Motion denied, pg 3 line 13-15 without even reading the motion!

SUMMARY by defendant

Evidence exists regarding possible motive involved with tampering. Evidence was quashed by judge prior to it becoming testimony. HARD evidence as well as mileage may yet exist within the mechanical components of said car. Judge REFUSED to hand over a car which he had required the defendant to repurchase. A car which may hold all the evidence necessary to prove the defendant CORRECT beyond any doubt. Judge defends actions by saying "motion pg 3 line 24, pg 4 line 1-5". Because of the length of time the car was in the possession of the plaintiff, the defendant claims: there was never a reason to believe it would be necessary to obtain further proof beyond: Warranty limits, as established by new car dealerships!/ REPAYMENT as established by the motor agreement between plaintiff and defendant/ warranty exclusion as established by new car warranty guidelines (plaintiff overheating car, drives fifteen miles further)/ NO mechanical descriptions within warranty periods established as common, except for pg 17 line 4-12, which was DISPROVED pg 17 line 13-24, pg 31 line 24, pg 32 line1,2. NO PROOF EXISTS that the defendant made knowingly false statements to the plaintiff.

WHEREAS; the verdict rendered by judge harry e. clem SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL & VOID By the defendant James F. Osterbur 5/20/93