UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

Central district of Illinois

A CLASS ACTION SUIT.

RE: 94-2060

PLAINTIFF: the common public citizen

represented by: James F. Osterbur

V.

DEFENDANT: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Represented by: the ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE

for the government; Janet Reno, or as appointed.

DEFENDANT: STATE OF ILLINOIS

Represented by: the ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE

for the government: Roland Burris, or as appointed.

DEFENDANT: THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY

Represented by: Covenant Medical Center.

1400 west Park

Urbana, Ill 60801

When a situation exists, of national interest, which can be seen as the basis and foundation of Society at peace, that is contrary to the common benefit, protection and security of the people, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter or require regulation in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public good, and thereby establish, through definition, FAIR PRINCIPLES AND LAW, for future and immediate, legislative action.

1. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: Predilection of the legislature through action or inaction AS: Regulation toward (in favor of) the medical industry and against the citizenry as a whole. BILL OF RIGHTS; section 4. That NO man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community.......

2. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: Usage by the medical industry of " illegal constitutional limitations on the rights of citizenship."

(A). Section 2-622 illinois code of civil procedure, REQUIRING, acknowledgment/allowance, by the medical profession BEFORE court controversies can exist, and thereby prejudge, PRIOR TO: Trial by Jury, OR in place of; A MONOPOLY.

(B). Denial of Amendment 7; which allows, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved....."

(1) Evidence shall be presented in the form of, State of Illinois: 92s1561 Champaign County, 6th district, 92c1222 Champaign County, 6th district, Gen 4-93-0847 Appellate Court, 4th district, and 76450 Supreme Court, AS A BEGINNING. These trials were initiated in relation to; James F. Osterbur, appearing at Covenant Medical Center EMERGENCY DOOR, complaining of a heart problem (thought to be preliminary heart attack) and (his own words) being used, abused, rejected, OVER BILLED with NO LEGAL RECOURSE, and suffering serious consequences from that incident. Trials held in 92s1561, and 92c1222, were by Judge, BUT were dismissed through the LACK OF LAW, or minor procedural infraction, and NOT for any other reason.

(C). Amendment 13 precludes, "neither slavery nor INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE........"

(1) Evidence shall be submitted indicating medical trauma, PRECLUDES free enterprise situations, which can thereby induce a "MONETARY IMPRISONMENT", without the patients' being at liberty to dissent or choose. NOT FREE ENTERPRISE, SUBJECTS, the patient to restricted markets beyond their control; i.e. Opportunity to select the drug supplier of choice, etc, does NOT exist!

(2) Evidence shall further be submitted, the medical trauma patient is held "IMPRISONED", to the discretion of "COST PLUS ANYTHING THEY WANT", in relation to supplies, drugs, etc.

The test; Does the Restriction of free market forces constitute price fixing? Does the patient, finding him/herself attacked by medical trauma, deserve the minimal protection of free market forces? Neither the hospital Nor the doctor, produce drugs, they merely represent a common business "middleman", capable of extracting more than deserved, due to patient vulnerability.

(D). Denial of Amendment 1: Restricted FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, limiting the freedom of choice, freedom of speech.

(1) Evidence shall be submitted examining the Right of the public to be informed, REGARDING such matters as doctor and hospital performance, and medical reliability (the reward of the procedure/its possible costs). Medicine, IS a business affected with the public interest, and NO LESS CRITICAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL, than freedom of the press is to other democratic (freedom./liberty) issues.

(E) Usurpation of Amendment 9: The right of the people to be free from terminology which denies or disparages their Right of Privacy, and consequent freedom. Those which are NOT subject to criminal punishments.

(1). Evidence shall be presented that defines; terminology is used without consent or opportunity for trial, a TRUE invasion of privacy, and fundamental control by others, WITHOUT sufficient cause, authority, or accuracy.

(F). A short summary of the charge; The medical establishment, by its inherent "NATURE OF THE BUSINESS" exhibits and establishes a MONOPOLY OVER THE PATIENT, akin to any other monopoly, exclusion of competition (by proximity, financial reasons, and life-threatening realities), and requires consent without security, for the patient.

(1) Evidence shall be presented; including hospital consent statements, price fixing, contracts signed under DURESS, and evidence suitable to establish, "lack of free enterprise", for the patient. Free enterprise is DEFINED AS: an agreement, whereby either party involved may CHOOSE, to be involved, WITHOUT FEAR, of serious physical (health) consequences.

3. A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CHARGE: The Not-for-profit status used within the medical industry, REPRESENTS: expenditures for buildings, salaries, perks, etc, which are grossly excessive to need and thereby FAR BEYOND the stated objectives for which tax exempt status was allowed, by the taxpayer.

(A). The medical industry controls their own competition, through closed schooling, which is a monopoly over (indirectly controlling the, rate of charge), the patient/taxpayer, (a profit-taking).

(B). The LACK OF taxpayer protection, found within the Constitutional doctrine IS REPUGNANT, to the people.

The taxpayer deserves protection from the Not-for-Profit entity, as well as, the Government itself.

(C). Fixed or controlled rates used by the Government, within their medical expenditures (Medicare, etc) Represents a FAILURE to protect the citizen. They are aware of the problem, and only find an "illegal" (NOT free enterprise) solution, for control of profit by/for the bureaucracy, RATHER THAN, protection of the public in connection with, NOT-for-Profit status, and a Capitol gains tax or profiteering suit on such items as drug resale, etc, in For-profit entities.

THE DEMAND: PROTECT THE PEOPLE (Provide the means necessary to pursue and produce the public protection as constitutionally allowed), Establish suitable Boundaries, Remove the Monopoly, Protect the patient and establish FAIR BILLING which can be easily mediated. That the billing may HONESTLY reflect the ACTUAL WORK; as in every free (I, have an inherent Right) from oppression, controversy between people.

PROTECT THE TAXPAYER, by enforcing Not-for-Profit status. Establish the Boundary which cannot, under any circumstance or reason, be betrayed. That Boundary IS: All taxes shall be combined, as are applicable to the Majority, and a percentage of income shall be established, WHEREIN ALL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT shall not be allowed to tax (in any form) beyond, THIS WOULD INCLUDE taxes in the form of DEBT, INCURRED on behalf of the people. As found in the pleadings 3(B).

JURISDICTION AS FOLLOWS: Because there are NO distinct precedents from which to draw, an assembly of information is used. Being held with the Constitutional words: That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;.....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......we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Jurisdiction begins this FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE exercise within the word DUTY, as applied and commanded through Constitutional Doctrines. the citizen is required to DEFEND HIS/HER NATION, as necessary, when attacked. This is an obligation of citizenship, not a Right, insomuch as a duty! The definition of DUTY; is a moral or legal obligation, and in this case a constitutional obligation as well. The requirement to accept this responsibility is found in many documents, such as the oath of citizenship. Bill of Rights:.....a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to Reform, Alter, ........in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

This case demonstrates an effective "inside attack", on constitutional rights, and CANNOT be differentiated from an external assault, in terms of destruction to citizens rights.

The necessity of the "Peaceful exercise of Judicial Review," is to: Admonish those in error, to rectify wrongs, and it FAIRLY control through appropriate Constitutional PRINCIPLES those Realities which define, VIRTUE AND PEACE associated with JUSTICE, FOR ALL. WE have a right as citizens to be concerned, to seek legal recourse and definition, and to demand a redress of grievances.

The Court has declared itself to be ,......."the supreme court resembles a constitutional convention in continuous session......(and suggests)...... it is very nearly the final interpreter of the Constitution." (Being just BELOW the people themselves). Therefore these questions BELONG, in the Court.

Monetary patient protection./taxpayer protection, within the confines of medical trauma can be effective ONLY as a percentage of income (apportioned to wealth). Eliminating insurance costs, government regulatory agency cost, bureaucracy cost, etc. Further defined in pleading ,2 (B) (1), court transcripts indicated therein.

Issue will be raised that the patient/doctor relationship is an employer/employee relationship wherein the employee/the patient; by virtue of, he/she has appeared at the emergency door through NEED (just as a worker takes a job through NEED); he/she has little or NO CONTROL; he/she is subjected to the monetary decisions of the doctor/hospital employer with NO REAL alternative. The situation is "an employee produces money, for the employer".

IF this is not so, then a contract exists wherein Pain, Torment, Threat of LIFE or LIMB; was used to induce signature to EXCESSIVE payments and interest, without significant recourse.

A SITUATION OR ABUSE COMMONLY CALLED, EXTORTION!

Issues raised will/shall also declare a constitutional background and Right, as defended in the preamble to the United States Constitution; that there are inherent and inalienable Rights, consistent with, "the basis and foundation of government" found within this case. And it is the intent of these pleadings to conform to the words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men/women are created Equal....", and at moments of medical trauma; " in need of protection through OUR Courts, and Governments and Law."

The Freedom of Discussion, within area's difficult for the public to understand, MUST BE given the expertise, provided by the Legal Process, that the people themselves may know, understand, assert, and protect themselves: BEING CERTAIN OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; This IS the TRUE FOUNDATION, of a government, by the people, for the people, and of the people.

I, James Frank Osterbur, do declare, the NEED exists for legal counsel, as provided by the Court, for this case. I am NOT a lawyer and this case DOES represent the public and as such is a distinctly public debt, and NOT a personal debt. The selection of an attorney should therefore be a "public" decision.

The defendant for the Medical Industry shall be Covenant Medical Center, Urbana, IL : By their presence in the initiation cases and their subsequent acknowledgment and acceptance through the warnings and descriptions given therein; being fully informed of the direction and substance and determination to bring this trial to court, were given sufficient opportunity to confront, or produce argument, without sacrifice.

The Fundamental Questions: Does the medical patient control their Citizenship Rights and Responsibilities, OR is his/her situation FORCED? Does force explain the exorbitant cost of medical care ? Does the reality of Medical Trauma, "as an assembly of variables", each of function and life, apply to the singular word, HOSTAGE? Does the repression of honest choice, through medical trauma, establish to the American people, a guarantee, "as the members of a Union might:" to speak and defend and intercede between, this struggle and the greed of mankind? Does medicine, as we know it, become so conducive, that a state of MONOPOLY is inevitable? Does the meaning of "Business" belong: wherein a monopoly will not/can not be avoided? Does the Reality of death, pain, and disability, "cast such a pall of fear and timidity", over the patient that, liberty, honor, and FAIR play can/have been sacrificed?

Is freedom of the press: for the people, a restriction on the government, or both?

Terminology which does NOT encompass legal right to trial, is a Failure of Due Process?

The regulation or dissolution of unfair business practice is common!

JUSTICE IS A RESULT, NOT A CONCEPT!

Equality is the Recognition of Life!

These matters are literally about life, death, and property and cannot be brushed aside.

The Court has NO Authority to be neutral!

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RE: 94-2060

A CLASS ACTION SUIT

Plaintiff: the " common public citizen "

as represented by: James F. Osterbur

V.

Defendant: United States, Government

as represented by: the Attorney General's Office

State of Illinois, Government

as represented by: the Attorney General Office

the Medical Industry

as represented by: Covenant Medical Center

1400 west park

Urbana, Ill 60801

THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS BEGIN: The DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The BILL OF RIGHTS

The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CONSTITUTION

The STATE OF ILLINOIS, CONSTITUTION

From Noble State bank v. Haskel (1911) 219 US 104, 31 S. ct 186, 55 l.ed 112.

A proceeding challenging the Depositors' Guaranty Fund. "It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs.

Canfield V. United States 167 US 518

"If then the legislature of the State thinks the public welfare requires the measure under consideration, analogy and principle are in favor of the power to enact it.

Driscoll V. Edison light and Power Co. 307 US 104, 59 S.ct 715, 88 L. ed 1134, (1939)

Justice Frankfurter: states "The only relevant function of law in dealing with this intersection of government and enterprise is to secure observance of those procedural safeguards in the exercise of legislative powers which are the historic foundations of due process".

as applied to: Those procedural safeguards are, the constitutional rights and duties of citizenship.

German Alliance Insurance Co. V. Lewis (1914) 233 US 389, 34 S.ct 612, 58 L.ed 1011

A pleading (insurance is a private business).

Justice Mckenna "Or to state it differently and to express an antithetical proposition, is the business of insurance so far affected with a public interest as to justify legislative regulation of its rates? And we mean a broad and definite public interest. In some degree the public interest is concerned in every transaction between men, the sum of the transactions constituting the activities of life. But there is something more special than this, something of more definite consequence, which makes the public interest that justifies regulatory legislation...... The transmission of intelligence is of cognate character......The basis of the ready concession of the power of regulation is the public interest....... and the "test of whether the use is public or not is whether a public trust is imposed upon the property and whether the public has a legal right to the use which cannot be denied."............In other words, the state has stepped in and imposed conditions upon the companies, restraining the absolute liberty which businesses strictly private are permitted to exercise.

Those regulations exhibit it to be the conception of the law-making bodies of the country without exception that the business of insurance so far affects the public welfare as to invoke and require governmental regulation. A conception so general cannot be without cause. The universal sense of a people cannot be accidental;........the companies have been said to be the mere machinery by which the inevitable losses by fire are distributed so as to fall as lightly as possible on the public at large, .............We may venture to observe that the price of insurance is not fixed over the counters of the companies by what ......but formed in the councils of the underwriters, promulgated in schedules of practically controlling constancy which the applicant for insurance is powerless to oppose and which, therefore, has led to the assertion that the business of insurance is of monopolistic character and that "it is illusory to speak of a liberty of contract."........We do not say this to belittle such rights or to exaggerate the effect of insurance, but to exhibit the principle which exists in all and brings all under the same governmental power....!

Munn V. Illinois (1876) 94 US 113, 24 L.ed 77

A pleading against rate fixing.

Chief Justice Waite: ....."a limitation of the powers of the states, it is old as a principle of civilized government........ the fourteenth (amendment) as a guaranty against any encroachments upon an acknowledged right of citizenship by the legislatures of the states.....private property is "affected with the public interest, it ceases to be private only"........accepted without objection as an essential element in the law of property ever since. Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence, and affect the community at large. When, therefore , one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created........may be a "virtual" monopoly......And it must also be conceded that it is a business in which the whole public has a direct and positive interest.........They entered upon their business and provided themselves with the means to carry it on subject to this condition. If they did not wish to submit themselves to such interference, they should not have clothed the public with an interest in their concerns.

West Coast Hotel Co. V. Parrish 300 US 379, 57 S. ct. 578, 81 L.ed. 703, (1937)

Minimum wage regulation

The principle which must control our decision is not in doubt. The Constitutional provision invoked is the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governing the states, as the due process clause invoked in the Adkins case governed Congress. In each case the violation alleged by those attacking minimum wage regulation for women is deprivation of freedom of contract. What is this freedom? The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract. 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 in each of its phases has its history and connotation. But the liberty safeguarded is liberty in a social organization which requires the protection of law against the evils which menace the health, safety, moral 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......

There is additional and compelling consideration which recent economic experience has brought into a strong light. The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well being but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. ......The legislature "is free to recognize degrees of harm and it may confine its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is deemed to be clearest.".......that it is meant that the constitution is made up of living words that apply to every new condition which they include, the statement is quite true. But to say, if that be intended, that the words of the constitution mean today what they did not mean when written-that is, that they do not apply to a situation now to which they would have applied then-is to rob that instrument of the essential element which continues it in force as the people have made it until they, and not their official agents, have made it otherwise....The judicial function is that of interpretation; it does not include the power of amendment under the guise of interpretation.

Holden V. Hardy 169 US 366

Regulation of miners hours

.....where we pointed out the inequality in the footing of the parties.

"The legislature has also recognized the fact, which the experience of legislators in many states has corroborated, that the proprietors of these establishments and their operatives do not stand upon an equality, and that their interest are, to a certain extent, conflicting. The former naturally desire to obtain as much labor as possible from their employee's, while the latter are often induced by the fear of discharge to conform to regulations which their judgement, fairly exercised, would pronounce to be detrimental to their health or strength. In other words, the proprietors lay down the rules and the laborers are practically constrained to obey them. In such cases self-interest is often an unsafe guide, and the legislature may properly interpose its authority."

United States V. Trans-Missouri Freight Association 166 US 290, 17 S. ct. 540, 41 L. ed 1007 (1897)

Involving a contract......for the maintenance of rates and the prevention of competition, the court held that contracts in restraint of trade were prohibited by the act whether they were or were not in themselves reasonable. (Clayton Act)

(as applied to) Section 1, of the Sherman Act provides:

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states...is hereby declared to be illegal"

(as applied to) The concept of interstate applies to; Knowledge directly flows from state to state, doctors are educated within various states, suppliers of drugs, supplies, etc.

Euclid V. Ambler Realty Co. 272 US 365, 47 S.ct. 114, 71 L.ed. 303 (1926)

Justice Sutherland...."for while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise.....'

United States V. Stanley, Ryan, Nichols, Singleton and Memphis and Charleston R. Co. 109 US 3, 3 S ct. 18, 27 L. ed 835 (1883)

"under the first and second sections of the act of Congress passed March 1, 1875 entitled an act to protect citizens in their civil and legal rights, "popularly known as the civil rights act."

Justice Bradley....."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the united States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere "brutum fulmen, " the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state laws and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it.

In the legal Tender Cases. 12 wall 457, 20 L.ed 287 (1871)

The court in justifying the power of congress...."and here it is to be observed it is not indispensable to the existence of any power claimed for the federal government that it can be found specified in the words of the constitution, or clearly and directly traceable to some of the specified powers. Its existence may be deduced fairly from more than one of the substantive powers expressly defined, or from them all combined. It is allowable to group together any number of them and infer from them all that the power claimed has been conferred."

Whitney V. California 274 US 357, 47 S. ct. 641, 71 L ed. 1095 (1927)

....Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the american government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. ........It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it.

Grosjean V. American Press Co. 297 US 233, 56 S. ct. 444, 80 L.ed 660 (1936)

Involving a Louisiana act of 1934 imposing a license tax of 2% upon the gross receipts of the business of advertising in newspapers or publications having a circulation of more than 20,000 copies a week, the court held that the tax, the effect of which was both to curtail the revenue of newspapers and to restrict their circulation, was "bad not because it takes money from the pockets of the appellees, but because, in the light of its history and of its present setting, it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties."

DE JONGE V. OREGON 299 US 353, 57 S ct. 255, 81 L. Ed. 278 (1937)

Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution...The right of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. As this court said in United States V. cruikahank, 92 US 542,552; "the very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances." The First Amendment of the federal constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgement by congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institution, principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause....

These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite........The people through their legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed.......the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the VERY FOUNDATION OF Constitutional government.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR V. SWING. 312 US 321, 61 S.ct. 568, 85 L. Ed. 855, (1941)

Justice Frankfurter: ...Such a ban of free communication is inconsistent with the guaranty of freedom of speech. That a state has ample power to regulate the local problems thrown up by modern industry and to preserve the peace is axiomatic. But not even these essential powers are unfettered by the requirements of the Bill of Rights. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment is not confined by the notion of a particular state regarding the wise limits of an injunction in an industrial dispute, whether those limits be defined by statute or by the judicial organ of the state. A state cannot exclude workingmen from peacefully exercising the right of free communication by drawing the circle of economic competition between employers and workers so small as to contain only an employer and those directly employed by him. The interdependence of economic interest of all engaged in the same industry has become a commonplace. American Steel Foundries V. Tri-City Central Trades Council,, 257 US 184, 209. The right of free communication cannot therefore be mutilated by denying it to workers, in a dispute with an employer, even though they are not in his employ. Communication by such employees of the facts of a dispute, deemed by them to be relevant to their interest, can no more be barred because of concern for the economic interests against which they are seeking to enlist public opinion than could the utterance protected in Thornhill's `case. "Members of a union might , without special statutory authorization by a state, make known the facts of a labor dispute, for freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution." Senn V. Tile Layers Protective Union, 301 US 468, 478.

Thornhill V. Alabama 310 US 88, 60 S.ct. 736, 84 L.ed. 1093 (1940)

The safeguarding of these rights to the ends that men may speak as they think on matters vital to them and that falsehoods may be exposed through the processes of education and discussion is essential to free government. Those who won our independence had confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning and communication of ideas to discover and spread political and economic truth..........The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment . The exigencies of the colonial period and the efforts to secure freedom from oppressive administration developed a broadened conception of these liberties as adequate to supply the public need for information and education with respect to the significant issues of the times...

Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period.

Meyer V. Nebraska 262 US 390, 43 S. ct 625, 67 L. ed 1042 (1923)

teaching in a foreign language

While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship GOD according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. ....The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect. Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton V. Steele, 152 US 133, 137..........

That the state may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the equality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the constitution extends to all, to those who speak ..........but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the constitution-a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means.....

Twining V. New Jersey 211 US 78, 29 S.ct 14, 53 L.ed 97 (1908)

Law of the Land

Justice Harlan, dissenting (notes)- The clause in Magna Charta to which the court refers in the instant case and in the Hurtado case reads as follows (Art. 39):

No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor shall we go upon him nor send upon him, but by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land {per legem terrae}.

In the Hoboken Land case,; the court accepted Lord Coke's identification of "due process" with the "law of the Land" in Magna Charta; and this has been accepted by the courts in later cases, although questioned by scholars.

As to the meaning of the phrase "law of the land" the definition given by Webster, which the court quotes in the Hurtado case, is taken from his argument in the Dartmouth college case. The definition reads in full, as follows:

By the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Everything which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land.

Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. V Grosjean, 301 US 412, 57 S. ct 772, 81 L.ed 1193 (1937)

......The law rates the privileges enjoyed in Louisiana according to the nature and extent of that privilege in the light of the advantages, the capacity, and the competitive ability of the chain's stores in Louisiana considered not in themselves, as if they constituted the whole organization, but in their setting as integral parts of a much larger organization.

Taxation may be made the implement of the exercise of the state's police power; and proper and reasonable discrimination between classes to promote fair competitive conditions and to equalize economic advantages is therefore lawful.

Wilson V. New 243 US 332, 37 S.ct 298, 61 L. ed 755 (1917)

....That the business of ....is in a sense a public business because of the interest of society in the continued operation and rightful conduct of such business and that the public interest begets a public right of regulation to the full extent necessary to secure and protect it, is settled by so many decisions, state and federal........But taking all these propositions as undoubted, if the situation which we have described and with which the act of congress dealt be taken into view, that is, the dispute between the employers and employees as to a standard of wages, their failure to agree, the resulting absence of such standard, the entire interruption of interstate commerce which was threatened, and the infinite injury to the public interest which was imminent, it would seem inevitably to result that the power to regulate necessarily obtained and was subject to be applied to the extent necessary to provide a remedy for the situation, which included the power to deal with the dispute, to provide by appropriate action for a standard of wages to fill the want of one caused by the failure to exert the private right on the subject and to give effect by appropriate legislation to the regulations thus adopted. This must be unless it can be said that the right to so regulate as to save and protect the public interest did not apply to a case where the destruction of the public right was imminent as the result of a dispute between the parties and their consequent failure to establish by private agreement the standard of wages which was essential; in other words that the existence of the public right and the public power to preserve it was wholly under the control of the private right to establish a standard by agreement. Nor is it an answer to this view to suggest that the situation was one of emergency and that emergency cannot be made the source of power.. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2. The proposition begs the question, since although an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed. If act which, if done, would interrupt, if not destroy, ........by anticipation legislatively prevented, by the same token the power to regulate may be exercised to guard against the cessation ........threatened by a failure of employers and employees to agree as to the standard of wages, such standard being an essential prerequisite to the uninterrupted flow......Again , what purpose would be subserved by all the regulations established to secure the enjoyment by the public of an efficient and reasonable service, if there was no power in government to prevent all service from being destroyed?

Further yet what benefits would flow to society by recognizing the right, because of the public interest, to regulate the relation of employer and employee and of the employees among themselves and to give to the latter peculiar and special rights safeguarding their persons, protecting them in case of accident and giving efficient remedies for that purpose, if there was no power to remedy a situation created by a dispute between employers and employees as to rate of wages, which if not remedied, would leave the public helpless, the whole people ruined and all the homes of the land submitted to a danger of the most serious character?

The court thus upheld the constitutionality of the Adamson Act, which provided for an eight-hour day and appropriate wage standards for interstate railway employees. The court declared that, although congress could not control or prevent collective agreement on wages on interstate railways or fail to enforce a v voluntary wage agreement, the failure of employees and employers to agree establishes a condition which congress may resolve by fixing wages or requiring arbitration, such authority being justified by congress's responsibility for maintaining the uninterrupted flow of commerce.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW IN CIVIL CASES; EMINENT DOMAIN

Knox V. Lee, 12 Wall , 457, 20 L.ed 287 (1871)

the court held that neither the due process clause nor the provision for just compensation covered a claim for "consequential damages" resulting from the exercise of lawful power.

Block V. Hirsh 256 US 135, 41 S. ct 458, 65 L. ed 865 (1921)

....We do not perceive any reason for denying the justification held good ..........to a law limiting the property rights now in question if the public exigency requires that. The reasons are of a different nature but they certainly are not less pressing. Congress has stated the unquestionable embarrassment of government and danger to the public health in the existing condition of things. The ....is necessarily monopolized in comparatively few hands, and letting portions of it is as much a business as any other. Housing is a necessary of life. All the elements of a public interest justifying some degree of public control are present. The only matter that seems to us open to debate is whether the statute goes too far.

Wolff Packing Co. V. Court of Industrial Relations 262 Us 522, 43 S. ct 630, 67 L.ed 1103 (1923)

(3) Businesses which though not public at their inception may be fairly said to have arisen to be such and have become subject in consequence to some government regulation. They have come to hold such a peculiar relation to the public that this is superimposed upon them. In the language of the cases, the owner by devoting his business to the public use, in effect grants the public and interest in that use and subjects himself to public regulation to the extent of that interest although the property continues to belong to its private owner and to be entitled to protection accordingly......

In nearly all the businesses included under the third head above, the thing which gave the public interest was the indispensable nature of the service and the exorbitant charges and arbitrary control to which the public might be subjected without regulation........; but when the public becomes so peculiarly dependent upon a particular business that one engaging therein subjects himself to a more intimate public regulation is only to be determined by the process of exclusion and inclusion and to gradual establishment of a line of distinction.

Adkins V. Children's Hospital 261 US 525, 569, 43 S.ct. 394, 67 L. ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238

....The truth seems to me to be that, subject to compensation when compensation is due, the Legislature may forbid or restrict any business when it has a sufficient force of public opinion behind it.

Mugler V. Kansas 123 US 623, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205.

.... But if the people of the state of New York speaking by their authorized voice say that they want it, I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent their having their will.

Standard Oil V. United States 221 US 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L.Ed. 619 (1911)

Under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, the court ordered the dissolution of the standard oil company of new jersey not because of its huge size but because it had used its economic power through pricing and other manipulative policies to restrain trade unreasonably (rule of reason).

Goldfarb V. Virginia State Bar (1975) 421 US 773, 95 S.ct 2004, 44 L. Ed 572.

The court held that minimum fees suggested by the Fairfax county bar association and in fact enforced by the state bar association constituted price fixing in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court reasoned that ..........The court rejected the bar association defense that the Sherman Antitrust Act was not intended by congress to apply to a learned profession because a lawyer, in conducting a title examination, renders a service in return for money and this is commerce.

Martin V. Hunter's Lessee 1 Wheat. 304, 4 L. Ed 97 (1816)

.....The supreme Court declared: (a) that the Constitution "was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the Constitution declares, by "the people of the United States".

New York Times Co. V. Sullivan (1964) 376 US 254, 84 S.CT 710, 11 L. Ed 2nd 686.

The court held that libel laws cannot be used to "cast a pall of fear and timidity" on the press Alabama courts had awarded heavy damages to Birmingham law enforcement officers who had sued the new york times, for libeling them in a paid political advertisement which it published. The court reversed this decision, holding that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open"; that injury to an official's reputation "affords no warrant for suppressing speech that would otherwise be free" ; and that a public official may not recover damages for libel unless he can prove actual malice, that is that the statement was made "with knowledge that is was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."

Chambers V. Florida (1940) 309 US 227, 60 S. ct 472, 84 L. Ed. 716

The court held that due process of law was denied when the police obtained "sunrise confessions" from four Negroes after they had been questioned for five days in the absence of friends, advisers, or counsel and "under circumstances calculated to break the strongest nerves and the stoutest resistance."

Crandell V. Nevada (1867) 6 Wall 35, 18 L. Ed 745

Court declares........"a person's constitutional privilege, to come to the seat of his government ... and to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports...to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several states."

McCulloch V. Maryland 4 wheat. 316, 4 L. ED. 579 (1819)

Chief Justice Marshall: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional."

Let it be re-entered, the establishment and protection of fundamental constitutional principles through Judicial Review, is an established and significant feature of the American Constitutional system. That a citizen has a Duty and a Right, to present to the Court significant breeches of these fundamental principles is, "A MOST BASIC, CIVIL POWER"!

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.

TO THE MEDIA

This case 94-2060, DESERVES AND NEEDS your support!

The court shall attempt to "WEASEL OUT", and it shall become your JOB, to assert and inform!

DO NOT USE, this material, or case 94-2001, until april 12. I WILL NOT file these latest papers with the court until april 5-6, and will in that week bring the cases as previously mentioned.

The court WILL CAPITULATE with your involvement, and allow trial, BUT the verdict shall be against.

That is IRRELEVANT, because the result is expected to be, "A MOST BASIC, CIVIL POWER" shall be ESTABLISHED!

DO YOU WANT THIS?

TO THE MEDIA

It is now possible to begin. The record in its entirety (case 94-2060) which precedes this federal case, is available to you, approx 250 pages, for the purchase price of fifty dollars.

This price guarantee's to you usage of said material "EXCEPT FOR, the medical description, that suggests I am mentally insufficient, a description I STRONGLY DISAGREE and oppose!" Descriptions are included as to the facts, relevant to me, these things are PERSONAL PROPERTY and I DO NOT release them.

The price is included as a guarantee to ME, that these matters shall be left alone.

When cases 94-2001 and 94-2060 go to trial these issues will no doubt be raised. There is NO OTHER DEFENSE. I will deal with these things, at that time, according to my own ways.

Some will suppose I will gain, RATHER my only gain is to go to public trial where the best of their profession will attempt to dishonor me.

STAY AWAY, from the personal aspects of the trial, to me.

TO THE MEDIA

My involvement is mandatory, BUT NOT DESIRED. These cases were dropped on "My doorstep", and cannot be avoided.

I, PREFER, a quiet and simple lifestyle, and REFUSE all interviews, apart from what I, believe, to be NECESSARY for the purposes of producing reasonable JUSTICE and CIVIL AUTHORITY, through these cases.

These cases ARE about CITIZENSHIP, and its RIGHTS and its DUTIES, and you will please adhere. These cases are NOT PERSONAL, and I am NOT fodder for the purposes of the press.

TO THE MEDIA

REGARDING FEDERAL CASES 94-2001 & 94-2060

These cases, EACH, carry significant consequences and benefits. 94-2001 has been carried to its, "turning point". It IS NOW YOUR TURN, to either reject or establish this case. ^have received an order filed Mar 25,1994, which states, "the court remains completely at a loss as to what the factual basis for this lawsuit is, or what federal cause of action , the plaintiff might have".

The next stage is again: "A 1st Amendment RIGHT, to petition the government for a LEGAL redress of grievances".

The court states; "because the plaintiff is unable to articulate a colorable claim for relief in federal court, the complaint will be dismissed."

With regard to an appeal, it will be very easy to establish this judge was included within the complaint "DE NOVO" trial pleading 16, and suggests discipline or dismissal of the judge. It IS illegal for the judge to hear, "his own case"! Making an appeal very SIMPLE.

This order finishes with: "case dismissed, without prejudice."

It is further stated: for the purposes of, the press, the words "treason, betrayal of a trust", and "grand theft, of personal/public rights", occur within the pleadings.

Be it hereby acknowledged, these words were used for the purposes of discussion; with intent to examine judicial responsibility, under the "judges.....shall hold their offices during good behavior". Article 3, section 1 of the constitution.

It is IMPORTANT, to recognize the words, "treason, and theft" ARE within the "freedom of speech", BUT could be used IMPROPERLY! They are for the purposes of discussion only.

DO NOT affiliate these words with ANY JUDGE, as that would necessitate A VERY UNDESIRABLE legal battle.

MY words are "merely the rantings" of a pro se litigant, who thinks the right to a free attorney is legitimate! Nothing more.

The consequence of proceeding with this action is to throw the Judicial system into disrepute. The media SHOULD ADHERE STRICTLY TO : A discussion limited to the definable realities of public justice in America, as identified.

The Benefits: A VERY NECESSARY, "cleaning, through the Civil Authority, for Equality and Fair Play!"

Let it be noted: Crime is MORE a description of abuse and separation from Society, than a state of anarchy. Abuse causing crime is UNEQUAL consideration or advantage. Separation causing crime is: "society DOESN'T WANT ME".

The current system of VOTING for a judge is COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE. The vast majority of citizens have NO possibility of knowing who is "good or bad". A court which DOES function properly is, a court in open public view, TV or radio.

Case 94-2060 Establishes open PUBLIC DISCUSSION on the problems of "medical business", and does focus on debt resolution, through public trial. Further benefit includes a 'NEW", open door policy to establish civil power by direct INTERVENTION, through public trial, into every area the citizenry feels necessary. The "common citizen" will regain the VETO power, and significant influence over rewriting or defining new legislation. THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT Democracy, WE THE PEOPLE, changes.

The consequence of establishing and addressing the issues involved WILL BE: The stock, bond, and foreign investors (markets) will be VERY NERVOUS. This WILL subside within a few months, once public control is described as a "good thing".

SOME ADVICE

IT IS CONTRARY, TO REASONABLE DEMOCRATIC ACTION, to investigate the Elected President, IN OFFICE, for matters (less than, MURDER) which occurred, prior to taking that office. The people DESERVE the full faculties of the President. The people DESERVE, full knowledge of EVERYTHING done during his/her official term in office. The people NEED a united Country, NOT a divided one.

Legal matters, MUST BE, answered BUT NOT during the official 4 year term, UNLESS the legalities are presidential Improprieties, or occur during the official term. THESE ARE IMMEDIATE CONCERNS.

Let the people, have their President.

1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PETITION

THE GOVERNMENT

FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The argument arises: WHO, HAS THE RIGHT to ask/why and where?

The first Amendment is quite clear: Congress shall make NO LAW.......prohibiting....or abridging the freedom of ......or the Right of......a redress of grievances.

The first Amendment is again quite clear: In whose freedom....."the people".....and who/what is restricted/required....."the government".

The third Article of the Constitution, is quite clear about legal issues/responsibilities: "section 1, The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts....established". and section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, and the laws of the United States..."

This petition draws from the initiating cases 94-2001 & 94-2060 to establish: THESE LEGAL GRIEVANCES!

let the facts be submitted:

The court IS NOT IMMUNE, it is established to PRODUCE, adequate or better behavior within Society, it is NOT separate, or entitled to exclusive privileges, BUT an example of a higher ideal! The court fails in these cases.

The court IS NOT CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE, IF it cannot understand, complaints as arise from, "the common public citizen", in simple language! The court fails in these cases.

The court IS NOT in compliance with Constitutional doctrine as defined by: WE THE PEOPLE......"IF the people cannot establish their authority by a legal redress of grievances"........IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION....."IF the fundamental values supplied by the Bill of Rights, FAIL to instruct"........ESTABLISH JUSTICE......."IF the formality of court proceedings demonstrates, a complete disregard for the outcome or allows EASY ABUSE of the citizenry"....INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILLITY........"IF the court fails to uphold JUSTICE (the intent of the Law, as directed through the Bill of Rights)..........PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE........"IF the people are forced to PURCHASE justice"...........PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE.........."IF the Law can become entangled (millions of words are TOO MANY)......AND SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY,........."IF liberty FAILS the people, allowing one group supremacy over the majority, allows pillaging of resources, allows the betrayal of the public trust in its most basic social foundation, allows inherent and inalienable rights to be possessions stolen."

Are these the things ordained and established by the American Constitution? WHOSE COUNTRY IS THIS?

The civil Authority CANNOT be demonstrated upon a single complaint. The public issues arise in connection with VALID, REASONABLE, social disputes. The authority called civil power BEGINS:

When the people join.

when the people discuss relevant expectations.

when the people Watch/Listen and react.

when the people define their decision.

when the people explain how far the boundary extends.

when the people specify, the penalty.

AND IS COMPLETE

when the people enforce their decision through law; CLEARLY visible and understandable to the majority.

Throughout the legal cases represented by Federal case 94-2001 & 94-2060 EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT, to communicate the Realities involved, has been made; yet the Court says, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND"!

RE: 94-2001

This case begins in the lower courts strictly in the language of the common citizen, A SIMPLE CASE. As requested by the Court it was "redressed" in a legal format, BASED UPON: A civil Rights action!

Evidence and personal testimony was given, and established through the Record, which was filed with the pleadings, and the memorandum in support. (cause of grievance), and further identified by (the common citizens outcry for Justice), a simple explanation included in the writ of right, Jan 28,1994.

The evidence was submitted within a CLEAR and CONCISE investigative procedure, whereupon the extent of abuse, and thereby damage could be easily ascertained; again as implied and supported by the record, received jan 6,1994 (applied to the test)!

The plaintiff illustrates his Right through Constitutional doctrine (authority)

YET THE COURT SAYS; "the plaintiffs response does not satisfy the courts requirements, specifically Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a). Rule 8 (a) requires a "short and plain" statement of the grounds upon which jurisdiction exists, a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgement for the relief the pleader seeks. Feb 08,1994.

The plaintiff replies Feb 18,1994, with a Constitutional Basis, per pleading, Being SHORT, and PLAIN, and SPECIFIC.

The Court replies: "Frivolous"

RE: 94-2001

This case explained in yet another way reads:

We the people, DO have an established RIGHT, to Fair and "EQUITABLE" solutions, in law. The Reality, and evidence CLEARLY indicate JUSTICE IS DENIED. This case is then,

A PETITION TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOR A LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Authority of the Court is thereby questioned, BY the Authority of the People, as a majority!

THE PLEADINGS AGAIN RESTATED:

1. No one can be convicted of a crime he/she was NOT charged with.

2. No one can be both prosecutor and judge.

3. A judge is NOT IMMUNE during bad behavior in a courtroom.

4. Every citizen deserves access to court , "within their own words".

5. The Authority MUST substantiate, OR it is TYRANNY.

6. Constitutional Questions ARE a function of the Courts responsibility.

7. The court MUST comply with BASIC fundamental procedure.

8. The people deserve protection from corrupt officials.

9. The people have a right to expect the lower court to RESPECT the higher court authority.

10. The people have a right to uniform judgements, the same penalty, being as reasonable and just, per situation, as the law allows, NOT TYRANNY, which is "making an example of someone"!

11. The people have a right to understand the courts directive, without compromise.

12. The Court acts illegally, IF orders are given directing compliance to one set of rules, then dismissing by yet another.

13. Procedural formalities are BIASED against the poor, (cannot be understood by), and therefore Illegal.

14. The simple defense, "tell it like it was", MUST be sufficient.

15. The court acts illegally, in view of:

a. DO judges protect each other?

the job IS to protect the law.

b. DOES the court oppose the liberty established in the words, "IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION"!

c. The people have a right to understanding.

d. Judicial immunity is NOT Constitutionally Based.

16. Procedural denial of the public right to, "ACCESS, to the Courts", is Illegal.

17. The people demand, "the foundation of Justice is EQUALITY", in every instance.

18. The people are ready to elect their president, THEMSELVES, one person, one vote.

Be it NOTED and understood: Judge Harold A. Baker, did cause pleading 16, of this case, to be initiated, filing jan 28,1994, and as such may have been influenced by the subsequent filing Feb 18,1994 and its demand...."discipline or dismiss".

The wording of issues as represented by case 94-2001 are harsher than perhaps necessary. The Reality of "so called justice" is EQUALLY HARSH and MORE SO upon the people it falls upon.

The purpose and demand of this case shall hereby be limited to: FAIR, EQUITABLE, CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE FOR ALL. and

The proper authority and RESPECT as is deserved by the people, limited by the constitution, and established by their VOTE.

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.

UNITED STATES APPELLATE COURT

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

RE: 94-2001 & 94-2060

Jurisdiction IS; as a public citizen to his/her government. The Court being, "very nearly the final interpreter of the Constitution, and the reality that these are legal questions, places the Quality, and Freedom, and 1st amendment RIGHTS, of the U.S. Citizenry, PLAINLY, within the Duty and Responsibility of the Federal Court of the United States of America.

Each case is hinged upon the legal requirements, provided to the citizen, which constitutionally adhere the government, to specific Responsibility.

These cases represent SIMPLE AND PLAIN, rights and obligations; there are NO "gray area's".

The COURT Substantiates, the 1st amendment rights of the citizen and adheres to its Responsibility, according to the CONSTITUTION, OR Rejects its Oath and Honor!