RE: 94-2060

This Case comes to court by reason of the MONOPOLY that clearly exists in medicine, and the reality that government enforces and allows this monopoly to stand.

THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

Further laws which might produce a Fair or Equal footing, between the public and the medical profession, DO NOT EXIST!

Evidence exists that the "Business of Medicine" can control Basic Liberties, forcing compliance without reasonable legal contest over cost.

The public is openly VULNERABLE, yet the medical establishment is CLOSED, access denied!

The individual is open to evaluation and therefrom terminology which cannot adequately describe ANY PERSON. Medicine dictates and allows NO retaliation.

The Realities involved in medical trauma transcend and eliminate ALL possibilities of free enterprise.

The taxpayer provides ANYTHING medicine asks, while medicine controls ALL aspects of patient care.

The TAXPAYER HAS LONG BEEN ABUSED!

The taxpayer/patient must fight alone against unfair pricing policies.

ALL these things the court finds, "INCOMPREHENSIBLE", even as seen within the plain and simple words pg 4, reply to order mar 18,1994. "each of which align specifically with the public right to a legal redress of grievances, as the purpose of this lawsuit".

The court represented by Judge Harold A. Baker. finds the constitutional framework of a legal redress of grievances, as defined by the first amendment to be, "frivolous".

The court also rejects known "medical business", realities of trauma, billing, etc, as irrational OR unsupported: Directly in violation of my right to DUE PROCESS. Judgement IS illegal outside of the courtroom. This supposition is supported from court documents, this case and case 94-2001.

Let it be known JUSTICE, EQUALITY, AND FAIR PLAY, through and HONEST evaluation of fundamental realities is the purpose and the demand. Constitutional Authority DOES belong to the people.