STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
RE; COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL GEN #4-93-0441
TRIAL # 92-S-2991
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
SUPREME # 76128
I, James F. Osterbur, DO hereby acknowledge and submit for consideration
THIS
PETITION
FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
I do pray the justices charged to uphold the highest court in the state of illinois shall hear my complaint, acknowledge my right, and UPHOLD JUSTICE as the rightful cause and TRUE PURPOSE OF THE COURT!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO enclose a copy of the, Order of the appellate court, DISMISSED upon that date, September 2, 1993.
I, DO hereby state, I, James F. Osterbur make known to judge clem and the plaintiff during the motion trial, an appeal would be filed (initial proceedings) dated May 11, 1993 pg 5 line 7-8
I do now make known an appeal to the state supreme court IS MADE. september 21, 1993 Original trial date april 21,1993 Champaign county courthouse trial 92-s-2991, gen 4-93=0441
A statement of the points relied upon
JURISDICTION
Reversal of the appellate court decision rests upon constitutional issues as follows:
1. Argument is made, DEMANDING THE LEGISLATIVE LAW, as required by the constitution and its bill of rights which DISTINCTLY ALLOWS the court to dismiss on the grounds of: PROCEDURE IS FUNDAMENTALLY GREATER THAN JUSTICE!
1A. Reliance for this argument us based within and upon the Bill of Rights as follows section 5: "that the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary....."
AS INTERPRETED: LAWS and the RIGHT of rule belong to the legislature and executive powers. LAWS, or the obligation of the people, OR RIGHTS of the people, are STRICTLY established by the legislature and executive powers.
The Judiciary MUST COMPLY within the LIMITS AND INTENT OF LAW.
Section 6: "....nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good."
AS INTERPRETED: IF, the clear and distinct LAW, HANDED DOWN by legislative or executive powers DOES NOT EXIST, THEN the judiciary HAS exceeded its authority: "NOT, to apply rules of conduct; RATHER to conceive issues of procedure or infractions of rule, GREATER THAN JUSTICE!
Section 7: That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, BY ANY AUTHORITY, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their RIGHTS, and ought NOT to be exercised.
AS INTERPRETED: The CLEAR AND DISTINCT description of; who determines, who is in charge, and WHY.
Section 15: That no free government or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES.
AS INTERPRETED: JUSTICE, IS A RIGHT anything which alters that RIGHT is to be abolished.
Section 2: That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, THE PEOPLE; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
AS INTERPRETED: WE THE PEOPLE, DO grant the RIGHT AND RULE OF LAW, FOR THE PURPOSE OF JUSTICE, PEACE, AND SECURITY; the DUTY GIVEN TO THE COURT IS: to preserve, HONOR, and protect. Those justices unwilling to do their BEST, DO NOT honor their position and should be REMOVED!
2. Argument is made: fails to provide citations to any authority.
The term, DUE PROCESS, IS COMMON and needs NO further referencing to complete an understanding within a court of law.
3. Argument is made: "fails to provide......a coherent factual background...."
Appellate Brief DOES INDEED take a step by step examination of the trial and judgement using actual trial statements. pg 21 of the appellant brief: "....This accusation is supported by reproducible evidence and eyewitness. This therefore must be considered adequate as ANY/ALL trial is entirely based within these REASONABLE CLAIMS.
4. This small claims court case represents a very simple, DISCIPLINE of the court: To provide equal access, an adequate hearing, JUSTICE described by EQUAL TREATMENT. The OFFICE OF JUDGE requires a minimal comprehension of the LAW. NO citation was given BECAUSE, NO citation was NEEDED.
5. Argument is made: ...."Appellant is appearing pro se.... obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel.
This appellant has NO complaint regarding the same rule theory BUT this appellant DOES complain regarding this very issue pg 1-2 of the appellant brief requesting clarity of the rule, for which the appellate court justices DENIED, by means of omission.
This appellant DOES suggest copies of such rules as apply to procedure SHOULD be handed out by court upon request.
6. Argument is made: "....substantial failure to comply...."
Appellant has received NO EVIDENCE from the appellate court which SUPPORTS this decision; RULES that apply, "a coherent description of the pertinent parts of the provision verbatim" {INFERRED: the court owes me the "pertinent parts"}.
(1) FOR CLARITY: NO objection was raised to the mechanic's testimony because, a CURRENT mechanical state was acceptable to the defense, HOWEVER use of current data as a description of 20 MONTHS prior to, by the judge was NEVER expected, as it is an obvious ERROR!
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
DATE 9/09/93
RE; COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL #4-93-0441
TRIAL #92-S-2991
CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
TO THE COURT
BRIEF
A trial initiated over an extended warranty period.
Defendant decrees, NO warranty given, 18 months too long.
Trial judge: FOR THE RECORD, becomes the prosecuting attorney and accuses defendant of FRAUD, PLAINTIFF NEVER DID
Appellate court; DISMISSED thereby FAILING (as stated in abstract) to provide appellant DUE PROCESS.
James F. Osterbur
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SUPREME COURT
DATE: 9/05/93
RE: COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL #4-93-0441
TRIAL #92-S-2991
TO THE COURT
ABSTRACT
In response to dismissal 9/02/93
I, James F. Osterbur, DO respond to stipulations, which are UNJUST, an oral contract broken, and claims for supporting authority waived, and the disregard for JUSTICE hidden within the words: "substantial failure of appellant to comply"!
Therefore I, James F. Osterbur, shall seek higher authority.
It is my RIGHT, to expect reasonable treatment, within the constitution, as provided for, by the citizens of the United States of America!
I am a citizen and shall recite to YOU the framework description, upon which the constitution IS based:
"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, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."
The court is reminded, the individual public citizen IS ITS ONLY DUTY! The citizenry IS THE GOVERNMENT, and the public citizen IS: its official, its SOLDIER, and its supporter.
With respect to government documents: "a declaration" july 4, 1776 a passage reads: He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good....for the sole purpose of fatiguing them.......a mock trial.
It is from the Bill of Rights, section 3: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is BEST which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
AND AGAIN
Section 15: That NO free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to JUSTICE, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
I, DO hereby declare, the appellate courts, order filed 9/02/93 dismissing gen #4-93-0441 FAILS to conform to the doctrines granted by legislatures of these United States of America. FURTHER: The Bill of Rights, section 7: That all power of suspending law, or the execution of laws, BY ANY AUTHORITY, without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights, and ought NOT to be exercised.
Section 7: Reads clearly to the pleadings in question whereby I, a Public Citizen, come seeking justice, AM TURNED AWAY for slight procedural faults. IS THIS JUSTICE?
The question represented in section 7 IS: Did the representatives of the United States of America GRANT the court, ANY AUTHORITY to determine rules, whereby JUSTICE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
The only defense for this action; "DID the appellant refuse to comply?" HE DID COMPLY, only to be dismissed for rules left unmentioned in the court order.
As to compliance of the documents themselves; I, James F. Osterbur, DO hereby testify, that I called the "clerk of the court at (217) 782-2586, the appellate court", REGARDING the mailing of said document and purposely asked that representative of the clerks' office, IF, there is ANYTHING out of place or in error regarding these papers, WILL THE COURT send me notice so that I may correct them, prior to judgement? That representative declared to me, "YES IF something is amiss, I would receive opportunity to correct before judgement is made.
I DO hereby declare: "if not for these words I would have driven to springfield, to the court, to be certain everything was in order. I, James F. Osterbur, DO hereby declare, I accepted those words as an ORAL CONTRACT, with the court! DUE PROCESS therefore becomes a part of the appeals proceedings as well as the original trial in that: "a person IS entitled to be informed of ALL, (and protected from) UNFAIR ACTS and procedures."
Within the brief, issued by the appellant, was a formal complaint and request, for clarity, regarding the appellants rights, through the court, which was NEVER addressed in their dismissal WHY NOT? The court claims, failure to provide any citations to any authority, or a coherent factual background, yet these magistrates fail their own test. Have I, a public citizen, NO Right to inquire regarding the law and its interpretation? ARE court officials entitled to exclusive personal decisions OR MUST they address the public, as citizens themselves, NO GREATER THAN!
IT WAS WRITTEN: That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights.....pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
JUSTICE REDEFINES LAW as that which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; for the public!
Rules solely for the benefit of court officials BECOME TYRANNY, as shown within the simple words: "the court deems appellants' response to the rule insufficient and orders the appeal DISMISSED for failure to comply with supreme court rules.
Regarding the failure to cite supporting authority: It was EXPECTED that the ISSUE OF JUSTICE was sufficient, and the judge competent to understand.
James F. Osterbur
IN SUMMARY
Factual evidence, the transcript of trial 92-s-2991 was present. Coherent factual background defined by documents presented by the appellant were presented, and DO show specific instances of error in judgements, made by the presiding judge.
The claim for Due Process: "To be informed of ALL charges against the defendant" IS CLEAR AND NEEDS NO further supporting authority.
THAT JUSTICE IS GREATER, THAN ANYTHING which the court has alleged IS BEYOND DOUBT!
JUSTICE IS NOT THE DECISION OF MAN, IT IS THE REALITY OF HONEST WORK, FAIR TRADE, AND TRUTH BEFORE SELF.
A RESULT, NOT A RULE!
James F. Osterbur
FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE IS A RIGHT
The NEED for definition of these words IS APPALLING! I would offer to the court a simple statement: WHAT WOULD the framers of the constitution say to YOU, if this case REPRESENTS what they worked and died for?
I, James F. Osterbur, asked for JUSTICE, ADEQUATELY defined all legal violations as pertains to this case. have stated damages, unusable evidence, and lack of due process, in NO uncertain terms. Yet all the appellate court can offer is dismissal, based upon a slight infraction of a minor procedural mistake.
It is beyond doubt, "those who defend this nation, that it may live up to the words," "FOR WHICH IT STANDS", DID NOT/DO NOT fight and die for this.
The PURPOSE of LAW and government IS CLEAR: To define and adhere to standards that are acceptable to the VAST majority, and to allow reasonable freedom to ALL.
The purpose of a judge: is to identify that standard, uphold it, and fight to keep it TRUE, to the stated goals of the people.
FREEDOM, IS NOT PERFECTION: FREEDOM IS EQUALITY, NOT CONFORMITY, BEYOND NECESSARY LIMITS!
James F. Osterbur
TO THE SUPREME COURT {IL}
I, James F. Osterbur, do submit these papers as a "fair and accurate statement of the facts".
IF, you should find the statement inappropriate to the words "without argument or comment" I DO pray for opportunity to correct!
My personal view, "fair and accurate are sustained" and of greater cause than "without argument or comment" as it may preclude a complete understanding! JUSTICE, without understanding, IS NOT JUSTICE reprints of LAW apply; but will define further if necessary.
SUPREME COURT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DATE 9/15/93
RE: COLE V. OSTERBUR
APPEAL #4-93-0441
TRIAL #92-S-02991
I, James F. Osterbur, having considered the matter carefully DO STATE: It is my desire to obtain justice.
I am defending myself, and have encountered an extremely unfriendly court system, as it applies to "JUSTICE FOR ALL". It is my decision, at this time, to call for JUSTICE, by the HONEST method of informing the court, to the BEST of my ability, as to this case, and expecting JUSTICE, as has been presented.
James F. Osterbur