UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RE: 94-2060

Reply to order filed march 18,1994

The constitution (state and National), as seen through the precedents already received by the court (pgs 10-31) DICTATE AND DECREE: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law, belongs specifically to the people, WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE!

The Authority undertaken IS NOT CONTRARY, to the Constitution (state or national) and thereby according to the precedents given, BELONGS to the people; McCulloch V. Maryland, pg 31. The court, whose authority is granted through the people, by this constitution is CONSTRAINED, to uphold: WE THE PEOPLE.........! Martin V. Hunter's lessee pg 29.

The claims arise,

I/WE, DEMAND TO BE EQUAL. (BILL OF RIGHTS)

I/WE DEMAND SOVEREIGNTY, over our lives (apart from criminal). (THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES)

I/WE DEMAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROTECTION FROM THOSE ENTITIES WHICH HAVE SEIZED OUR FUTURE, ESTABLISHING personal DEBTS, medical or other, BEYOND OUR CONTROL OR DESIRE. The protection of personal property (debt control) is within the fifth amendment (U. S. Constitution), AS APPLIED TO: OUR POSTERITY, the children have a right to JUST COMPENSATION! (THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE)

I/WE DEMAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, to medical information, New York Times V. Sullivan pg 29, as NECESSARY FOR SURVIVAL, and is held within the fourth amendment (U.S. Constitution) : The RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS.....!

I/WE DO CLAIM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, and those listed previously, HAVE BEEN TAKEN, from us by the medical establishment. Standard Oil V. United States pg 28.

I/WE DO CLAIM these Constitutional rights were dismissed by the state of Illinois, particularly in view of Illinois code of civil procedure, section 2-622. United States V. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, Singleton and Memphis and Charleston R. Co. pg 16.

I/WE DO CLAIM THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE/ARE UNPROTECTED, by the United States Government. Whitney V. California pg 17.

Evidence will show, "LACK OF LAW", LACK OF MITIGATION/ARBITRATION RIGHTS, LACK OF PERSONAL DEBT CONTROL (A TAKING, by others), and lack of personal INHERENT RIGHTS! De Jonge V. Oregon pg19.

The Constitution will show: It is a DUTY OF CITIZENSHIP, to correct these problems; the legal nature of these problems, brings them to OUR COURT, AND TO OUR PEOPLE! Meyer V. Nebraska pg 22.

WE DESERVE, to live within the Values and Rights, as the Constitution (the people of the U. S.) provides; OR WE LIVE IN ANARCHY. Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co. pg 16.

The primary Amendments to the United States Constitution wherein the people rest IS: ARTICLES 1,4,5,7,9,10,13,&14

The Right of the people, to a LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, Crandell V. Nevada pg 30, RATHER THAN, a political discussion, is covered and allowed by Amendment 9 of the constitution, and section 2 of the Bill of Rights, AND IS COMPULSORY, DUE TO: Distinctly personal/public issues of property, Justice, and commerce. West Coast Hotel V. Parrish pg 13.

Let it be reiterated: The FIRST DUTY assumed by each Judge under his/her oath of office, IS to support the federal and state constitutions (the constitution alone, AS IT IS WRITTEN, IS the sole test). The court MUST of necessity, enforce the constitution. WUEBKER V. JAMES, Co Ct 1944, 58 NYS 2d 671. and STATE V. JUD FIRST NAT BANK, 1925, 202 N. W. 391 , 52 N.D. 231, OATH OF OFFICE, art 6, CL 3

The order march 18,1994 suggests the basis or foundation is lacking; YET the court plainly acknowledges the relationship and validity of 42 USC 1983 ( the public health and welfare). The Court reasoned, read, and UNDERSTOOD, making the charge, "ignorant as to the basis" of questionable integrity.

The foundation of the complaint is further identified and acknowledged by the Court in: "seeks vindication of the Constitutional Rights of the common public citizen". The words are TOO PLAIN, to produce doubt as to their meaning! From Noble State Bank V. Haskel pg 11. Canfield V. United States pg 11. Driscoll V. Edison Light and Power Co pg 11

The court having acknowledged a case involving constitutional rights, as well as, public health and welfare, German Alliance Insurance Co. V. Lewis pg 11; DISTINCTLY AND DELIBERATELY IGNORES, the plaintiffs request for legal counsel in its order, stating instead , "as he appears to have filed this action before conducting any legal research". Johnson V. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, Yet, the Court DOES UNDERSTAND, the plaintiff cannot afford to PURCHASE JUSTICE. Nor does the court make any case whatsoever against providing adequate counsel. Examination indicates the protection of constitutional rights to be PARAMOUNT to the courts RESPONSIBILITY, yet the court makes no mention within this order acknowledging its DUTY and its obligation. Rather the judge initiates the description of, " Court Jester", with his words, "must submit a separate memorandum of law, in support of his claims". This attempt is in poor taste, and IS NOT appreciated.

The memorandum of law IS acknowledged by the judge: "at its conclusion, the complaint demands....", which falls upon the ninth page, and the judges' own words, "having read the plaintiffs entire 31 page complaint". The tenth page being entitled "memorandum of law, RE 94-2060, DEMANDS a situation akin to PERJURY exists.

This memorandum pages 10-31, exists primarily of precedents taken from the Supreme Court of the United States, and is plainly so described; each of which align specifically with the public right to a LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, as the purpose of this lawsuit, American Federation of Labor V. Swing pg 20. AND IS IDENTIFIED, as such, by the words, "that a citizen/citizens, have a duty and a right, to present to the court significant breeches of these fundamental principles is, A MOST BASIC CIVIL POWER, page 31, and on page 1 "establish through definition, FAIR PRINCIPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAW," (an adaption from the Bill of Rights, section 3.) Thornhill V. Alabama pg 21.

The court purports to make an issue of : "the complaint is devoid of any facts", yet dismisses without cause, page 2 original pleading 2 A, An obvious usurpation of amendment 7, clearly stated. 2 B (1) the cases and the words ........NO LEGAL RECOURSE.(clearly supported through court transcript)....dismissed by lack of law, (the trial Judges words)..... or minor procedural infraction,(the appellate judges determination),..... and NOT for any other reason. Initiating the question; ARE THESE NOT SUFFICIENT, CLEARLY SUPPORTED, FACTUAL EVIDENCE. Pleading 2C DOES support the issue raised is COMMERCE. Pleading 2D DOES infer "LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST", because "public" information is Denied. It is the job of the court to determine, WHO has the controlling interest. Pleading 2E Establishes itself within the cases listed 2B. Pleading 2F Shall be established at trial and begins its associations with the case, Chambers V. Florida pg 30. Pleading 3 IS established, throughout the cases 92S1561 and 92C1222 AS, this much GREED, CANNOT justify tax-exempt status. Pleading 3A ESTABLISHES MONOPOLY in the making. Pleading 3B IS obvious and CONTRARY TO, "WE THE PEOPLE". PLEADING 3C ESTABLISHES government Failure to protect the citizen, even when the problem is recognized. DID this judge FAIL, making the statement; "the complaint contains [rambling paragraphs]." The issues HE RECOGNIZED; Regulation of the medical industry, freedom of the press, due process, equal protection of the laws, and involuntary servitude, among other legal issues. Consequent to this DID HE call for, or provide a writ of certiorari, that the facts might be investigated which PLAINLY DISTINGUISH........this plaintiffs standing to sue and bring suit, SUBSTANTIATING, "my/our Constitutional rights have been violated"; through the court, by the medical industry, and by the government whose authority to protect, and to provide legal recourse, for each citizen, has been held in BAD FAITH!

DOES THE JUDGE ALLEGE, these are frivolous pleadings, OR does he endeavor to sit upon, "a throne", asserting the common citizen CANNOT come here, a literal form of tyranny, DEVOID of Constitutional authority! DOES, the charge of DISCRIMINATION, stand? Against those too poor or without a legal education; IS their lives or needs, for PROPER Judicial intervention, "Frivolous"? Does the DEMAND (pleading) page 5, FAIL to CONVEY, "THE PUBLIC CITIZEN NEEDS THE COURT". The court states; "the memorandum should apply the facts to the law", BUT the court provides NO precedent or LAW! Jurisdiction is again re-instated, that the citizen/citizens DO OWN UNDENIABLE RIGHTS, TO THIS FORM, OF DUE PROCESS!

It is IMPOSSIBLE, to believe the public (common citizen), has been treated differently than I, (these things occur) producing the response "CLASS ACTION SUIT".

The plaintiff (WE), DEMAND the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, AS CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED; having paid the price for it, WE DEMAND IT! Twining V. New Jersey pg 23 (LAW OF THE LAND).

These are LEGAL questions; giving, requiring, Jurisdiction to be within the court. As the constitution declares Article 3, section 1: The judicial power of the U.S. shall be vested in the court........ Section 2. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity arising under this constitution..... Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. V. Grosjean pg 24

These are questions, SECURED, to the American system of government, BY THE RIGHT TO VOTE. These complaints submit, National security is described as: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, ...........(FOR OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN). And hereby re-submits, these complaints are supported by court documents, commonly known FACTS, and by the preparation of evidence, to be undertaken. Wilson V. New pg 24.

The court may select REASONABLE boundaries determining: IF NO MORE THAN_______________ citizens JOIN, in this case, once sufficient time and advertizement has occurred, the case shall be dismissed. TO JOIN SHALL BE TO VOTE! Block V. Hirsh pg 27.

The court suggests and demonstrates this case has already been decided by its "rejection of the facts and memorandum" and initiates the prejudicial response, "Frivolous pleadings".

This Plaintiff instructs the Court, DECLARE, the "frivolous" nature of the words: "These matters are literally about life, death, and property, and cannot be brushed aside, page 9, and the "Frivolous" nature suggested, within the constitutional rights herein, AS STATED! Mugler V. Kansas pg 28.

This plaintiff, EXPECTS FULL LEGAL RECOURSE, Adkins V. Childrens Hospital pg 28, or will be forced to initiate the words and actions necessary to establish, the Court MOCKS the first Amendment of the constitution: "the right of the people peacefully to petition the government, for a redress of grievances"! As well as, an absolute avoidance, of amendments 14,15,19, and 26, by this court.

It is sufficient to say: The amount of money represented, is LESS than 1 %, of the "medical business". The CALL, within this case, IS FOR JUSTICE! It is REPREHENSIBLE, BUT TRUE; The failure to include a monetary penalty, UNDIGNIFIED or NOT, precludes the Right to trial. The court says NO damages, NO case!

Wolff Packing Co. V. Court of Industrial Relations pg 27.