TRANSCRIBED FROM THE HANDWRITTEN DOCUMENTS, EXPECTED TO BE SUFFICIENTLY CORRECT/ ANY DOUBTS WOULD BE CAUSE TO REQUEST COPIES FROM THE COURT.

IL SUPREME COURT CASE # 76450

An appeal of appellate case #4-93-0847

Originating according to Champaign county # 92-c-1222

A prayer for leave to appeal (terms used to eliminate any excuses)

Appeal dismissed without comment Nov. 5, 1993

I, James F. Osterbur do seek leave to appeal the dismissal entered against me on the following grounds:

Taken from, "official ill courts commission reports KFI 1725.5 .D5 A5 1992

rules of procedure, "rule 5...file responsive pleadings...pleading. "They shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him." RULE 11: the process and procedure before the commission shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be...but the allegations of the complaint must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. RULE 3: shall advise ...of his right to file responsive pleadings to the charges NOT LESS than twenty one (21) days after service of notice upon him...." Taken from the "oath of office, etc art 6 CL.3 note 4.8. requirements imposed by oath: under constitutional requirement that all members of the legislature and all executive and judicial officers of the several states shall take an oath to support the constitution, the constitution alone, as it is written, is the sole test, and support of an act of congress or any law promulgated by any other federal official or any court decision is NOT required.... The first duty assumed by each judge under his oath of office is to support the federal and state constitutions; hence if in any cause presented to a court one of the parties invokes a provision of statutory law, and the other party invokes a provision of the constitution, and there is a clear repugnance between the two, so that one cannot be enforced without doing violence to the other, the court MUST of necessity enforce the constitution.... Taken from "judicial conduct and ethics; shaman, lubet, alfin KF 8779.s47 1990 page 400,401 13.09 procedural due process rights...." The fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Application...a two step analysis: first it must be determined if governmental action (judicial action, in my case) affects an interest in life, liberty, or property; an.....". Property interests protected by procedural due process extend beyond actual possessory rights....a unilateral expectation of a benefit..., but where a state has acted in such a way so as to create an objective, reasonable expectation of a benefit,....a property interest will be recognized. "Liberty denotes an individual's interest in the enjoyment of privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free persons. Where an individual's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of governmental action, some procedural protections are essential...." From "judicial conduct and ethics" page 32 2.04 toward litigants ......disciplinary bodies however have generally been sensitive to the fact that a nonlawyer litigant is somewhat more vulnerable...the supreme court of Florida stated: "we take this opportunity to remind ourselves as judges that TYRANNY is nothing more that ill-used power...." A new york court.....stating that a judge, "MUST lean over backward and err on the side of making sure that he does not intimidate the parties from pursing legitimate claims...." "A judge who is impatient with a litigant runs the risk of violating the canon 3 (4) duty to accord the litigant "full right to be heard..." taken from "judicial conduct and ethics" pages 529-537 model code of judicial conduct 1990" from preamble; "our legal system is based on the principle that an independent, fair and competent judiciary will interpret and apply the laws that govern us....as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system...." Canon 1 commentary deference to the judgements and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity.....although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law,.... public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law. Canon 2 A. a judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Commentary: public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges....." Canon 3 A.........duties include all the duties of the judges' office prescribed by law...." (B) read 1,2,4,5,& 7 #4 commentary; the duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience...." (5) commentary; "a judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute....." (7) a judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that persons' lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. At issue herein: define law and right?

Taken from "Janosik, encyclopedia of the american judicial system 2 KF 154.E53 V.2 1987 "common law and common-law legal systems pages 511-512 source and form of american law.......founding fathers. They insisted on a constitution that would be the highest and most fundamental source of american law; and that constitution was reduced to clear writing, a legal document , the authority of which derived not from ancient custom, but from its ratification and acceptance by the people of the several states. "....the reformers, or many of them thus urged a totally new and conceptually alien approach to law: they urged judges to give more attention to the "real" (NOT merely the legal) interests at stake in such controversies and to weigh the social consequences of their decisions rather than mechanically following earlier cases. Thus the famous call for "sociological jurisprudence" and later for "legal realism". In time, these movements accomplished....by shifting the emphasis of legal thought from....preoccupation with what H.L.A. HART called the "pedigree of rules"....regarding all law, including judicial decisions, to be expressions of social policy, they believed judges should strive to reach decisions that would best further the goals of a free, democratic society..... the law....became a tool useful for building a better future. ......affirmatively seeking results that would have desirable future effects was a difference or more that mere words....the search for real interests at stake in litigation ....extend the parameters of lawsuits to include a whole host of extralegal considerations...."

To identify law, as applied to the american experience, the rules and objectives which were DIED FOR, are defined by the "declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776. As it applies through law (the authority of which derived not from ancient custom but from its ratification and acceptance, BY THE PEOPLE of the several states "That all men are created EQUAL; deriving their just powers 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......he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.....etc.

To identify RIGHT as applied to the american experience, the reality of what men & women chose, as important enough, to risk life, limb, and property to obtain is strictly and correctly defined by "the virginia bill of rights, adopted June 12, 1776. There are those who would suggest these two documents are less than the constitution itself, YET THE REALITY IS; there would be NO constitution (proposed September 17, 1787; after the war) without it. [clearly the law (declaration of Independence) and the right (virginia bill of rights) produced and instructed and BUILT the american government.]

The constitution and its intent, are framed and identified in its foundation: "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.

To identify constitutional merit or grounds, these 3 documents DO APPLY!

This case general # 4-93-0847 does present the following conflicts, economic rights, and principles! The primary points of contention restated, appellate case:

1. A monopoly exists

2. Failure to arbitrate, constitutes price fixing

3. Equality demanded in billing dispute

4. Section 2-622 of the state of il IS a violation of DUE PROCESS, and argued

5. A medical emergency does define a citizen in or as a HOSTAGE.

6. ADDRESSES THE LACK OF LAW

7. Duty acknowledged constitutionally

8. Fourteenth amendment argued

9. Constitution (preliminary argument)

10. Bill of rights argued.

11. Justice is a RESULT, NOT A RULE

12. Property involved

13. Monopoly exhibited

14. A public issue presented

15. Monopoly/price fixing established

16. Duty established

17. Constitution challenged; "does the judiciary have the right (authority) to resolve this issue?

Taken from "THE JUDICIARY, John R. Schmidhauser" the judiciary....is often described as an institution that resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures.... the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibility for safeguarding economic rights, such as contract or property, and protecting noneconomic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion....

18. Monopoly revisited

19. No legal recourse

20. Section 2-622 ill state law is a MONOPOLY given by th state to the medical industry/ unconstitutional.

21. Rights

22. Pain, then harassment, possible extortion

23 legal agreement analyzed

24. Illegal issue

25. Constitutional guidelines acknowledged

26. Precedent is constitution & bill of rights

27. Call for justice

28. Right of counsel

29. Constitutional guidelines met

30. Must be dealt with

the appellate court has already declared these issues to be less than: supreme court rules 341-344, by its order entered Nov 5, 1993

This plaintiff demands adherence to the constitution, and the judicial oath of office, and equality. This plaintiff does freely admit the lack of sufficient money to pursue equality through the use of lawyers. This plaintiff adheres instead to the concepts and realities of duty and justice and reminds the judicial branch that obligations such as: mandatory induction into the military, mandatory taxes ( we pay, as taxpayers, for everything), mandatory reliance on politicians rather than voting for the issues ourselves. This plaintiff does freely admit the lack of formal legal instruction. This plaintiff adheres instead to the constitutional privilege, "to come to the seat of his government .....and to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, .....he has the right of free access to.....and its courts of justice." This plaintiff does expect, the rules of procedure from the ill courts commission as applied to judges shall also apply to the plaintiff: rule 5....pleadings they shall be in ordinary, plain and concise language designed to fairly respond to the charges brought against him. And rule 3.....shall advise the judge of his right to file responsive pleadings to the charges NOT LESS than 21 days after service of notice upon him.... and rule 11......the process and procedure ....shall be as simple and summary as reasonably may be....

The evidence of bias exists within the dates: appeal dismissed entered Nov 5, 1993 motion sent Oct 28, 1993 Do I, the recipient of a formal court proceeding have 21 days or not? IS the failure to advise, clearly evident within the order of the court a violation of due process or not? Regarding a pre-trial conference requested by Mr. Krchak. A post-trial conference was held with defense attorney Mr. Cornyn immediately following trial 92-C-1222 whereat all the issues relevant at that time were discussed. The plaintiff and the defense, each, outlined what was or would be or could be offered to resolve. The defense left with a complete understanding of the plaintiffs position and offer, and returned no to the counter offer, leaving nothing further to be discussed. One pre-trial conference is enough!

The court contends, " a litigant appearing pro se....is obligated to follow the same rules as a litigant represented by counsel. This plaintiff expects those rules of procedure being rule 5 and rule 11 and easily and notably complies and responds in "Ordinary, plain and concise language...." and are "as simple and summary as reasonably may be...." The question develops: "is there one law for judges and another for the citizen or are we equal under law?"

The definition of coherent: "sticking together, consistent". I, James F. Osterbur DO believe, the words and efforts for fair and justifiable, legal arbitration, are not only consistent BUT MY RIGHT as a citizen under the U.S. constitution. The question develops: "do I need money (for a lawyer) or must I have a legal education to obtain justice?"

I, James F. Osterbur, do believe justice, defined as RIGHT versus wrong IS a FUNDAMENTAL, not a monetary or educational concept, BUT is intended:......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". Mr right, to neutral arbitration AS AN EQUAL, Irregardless of my education or monetary means is established within these words. The court is reminded: the poor and less educated comprise a majority of the soldiers who died to give me this right! It shall be noted; the defendant received the pre-trial documents to case 92-C-1222 and recognized these documents (certified by the defendant). Page 2-3, motion to dismiss, #3. It shall also be noted this appellant finds no evidence within rules 341-344 requiring formal certification of the record. FOR THE RECORD: pre-trial documents presented DO; form a coherent realistic legal search for justice through the proper sequence of , first covenant medical center, then the lower court, then the motion court, then circuit court, and now appeals, which becomes this state supreme court case. Denial has been according to rule or lack of law, NOT constitutional decree to establish justice! Motion to dismiss pg 3 #5: the distinction is made pg 1 this is a landmark case, there are no distinct citations available. The authorities relied upon are self-evident; legal status regarding monopolies, price fixing, due process, the fourteenth amendment, the bill of rights, and the constitution. Are prevalent and sufficiently known, these ARE NOT obscure rules, but comprise everyday freedoms and rights and therefore: it is expected the attorney and/or judges which may be involved SHALL have a working knowledge of these fundamentals! The word BRIEF: (definition; a synopsis/ of short duration) agrees with this concept! Motion to dismiss pg 3, #6: appellants brief pg 10 lines 13-16; "an amended trial is sought...." and defined pg A-1 to A23. Motion to dismiss pg 3 # 7: the issues pg 1 line 10 does a monopoly exist is medicine? Line 14-16 does failure to arbitrate constitute price fixing, within a contract signed under duress? Pg 5 lines 3-10.....has determined to address the lack of law...... Motion to dismiss pg 3 #8: appellants brief pg 3 line 8 authority; the constitution . In an overview of this case, as depicted within these papers (throughout 92-S-1561/ 92-C-1222, and gen #4-93-0847) The rights of each citizen are contested for, in many areas'.

The courts authority to be a neutral arbitrator is equally contested, brief pg 12-13. Because these are public issues and rights; the statement comes pg 21 brief; "the plaintiff must become the common public citizen, and the defendant must become the medical industry". Pg 22 redefine, "the attorney for the plaintiff (public) by law, must therefore be a licensed attorney provided by the state, for public aspects of this case. The fourteenth amendment applies. Jurisdictional basis is; the FOUNDATION, which the constitution is built upon: ......establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,.....bill of rights....constitutional law. Pg 5 lines 14-16 and pg 6-7 DO define these issues as LEGAL, not political, and has entered the court system. Motion to dismiss pg 3 #9 rule 341 (e) (5) "If the provision involved is lengthy, its citation alone will suffice at this point, and its pertinent text shall be set forth in an appendix." Section 2-622 is mentioned as part of the public aspects of this trial and therefore to be defended by th public's lawyer. Section 2-622 has never been relevant to the personal case of this plaintiff as has been identified within trial 92-c-1222 pg 9. Motion to dismiss pg 3-4, line 10; this brief includes a table of contents pg 26-28 which are specific for referencing; the record (pre-trial) also contains 3 introductory pages for referencing. Motion to dismiss pg 4 line 11 The reasons of contention are summarized by the words: monopoly, price fixing, lack of law, court authority, bill of rights, and constitution and are used throughout brief and record. As described this case is perceived and intended to resolve a myriad of legal issues, best described by the public's attorney (not yet appointed) pg 4 lines 14-16 pg 5 lines 1-2.

The issue of duty pg 5 line 11-13; arises within th preamble to the constitution (as read from an American legion meeting hall). "....we associate ourselves together for the following purposes: to uphold and defend the constitution, ....to preserve the memories and incidents of our associations in the great wars, to inculcate a sense of individual obligation to the community, state, & nation; to combat the autocracy of both the classes and the masses; to make right the master of might; to promote peace & good will on earth; to safeguard and transmit to posterity the principles of justice, freedom, and democracy; to consecrate and sanctify our comradeship by our devotion to mutual helpfulness."

The reasons for contention are further identified brief pg 8-9 Improper treatment and billing and no honest effort to mediate, arbitrate, or provide an impartial peer review. Pg 4 line 6-8 (transcript 92-s-1561) Pg 5-13 of the case file "a case intent upon life in human terms, not medical terms, not greed or charity RATHER TRUTH, EQUALITY AND FAIR PLAY" found in the pre-trial, listed in the table of contents as pg 122 "case as filed initially". Lists a factual point by point contention of the initial medical realities and identifies the complaint and provides substance to the words pg 9 "I was given treatment NO ONE would consider routine, professional, or adequate...."

Reference to the record found pg 28, brief "the prepared statements which are a part of ...trial 92-c-1222 by the plaintiff, reflect the overall attitude and display a legal summary of this case" . This reference is found on the third page of the table of contents record (pre-trial_ following pg 123 trial transcript, (T1-6 prepared statements used in trial). Motion to dismiss pg 4 line 12; conclusions are pg 7 brief; jurisdiction pg 6 brief; relief sought pg 21 brief. Motion to dismiss pg 4 line 13 a copy of the judgement brief transcript pg 13-15 (92-c-1222 a copy of the judgment, pg 9 following 1222 for 92-s-1561 notice of appeal precedes trial transcript. Table of contents pg 26-28 brief initial three pages of record/ defense acknowledges; "plus remainder of trial 1222 not included in brief" pg 3 line 3 (motion to dismiss)

wherefore the plaintiff states, the opportunity allowed under Il supreme court rule 310 was/ IS VOID; due to dismissal within 8 days, failure to advise of such short notice, tyranny is suspect.

Memorandum of law pg 4 line 6; "...plaintiff explain why he is disagreeing with the trial court judge". The plaintiff disagrees only with the outcome of trial 1222 NOT its conclusions. Noted: "the court; are you aware of any sort of administrative rule or regulation that govern the defendant here...." Mr. Cornyn: NO". The court; are you aware of any statute which provides for a mediation or arbitration process for medical billing?" Mr. Cornyn; NO, you honor" . The court; "Now I want to ask yo those same questions Mr. Osterbur...." Mr. Osterbur; I am not aware, or have been unable to find specific laws or statutes on that." The court; are you aware of any administrative regulation, or rule....." Mr. Osterbur; I am not aware of any administration regulation or rule...." Mr. Osterbur; I've been unable to find statutes for that as well"

The court; pg 14 transcript (brief) now the function of somebody in my position as a judge, is to enforce the statutes which the legislature has enacted, and the governor has signed, and which are the laws of our state;....I know of no statute or regulation...and neither the plaintiff, nor the defense attorney, cite to me any statute or regulation....I simply am not in a position... an no judge I suggest is, in the position... to sort of make up the rules..."

Herein begins the statement "lack of law" pg 5 line 1-10 and concludes with public case!

The relief sought pg 10 lines 11-16 brief; to avoid further misconception regarding why was billing issues chosen, as the appropriate avenue. The treatment received by the plaintiff from the emergency room staff was AVOIDABLE, they needed only to question me, or allow me to state my distress, or listen to me prior to the injection of drugs, they did not; I suffered as a result! The reality involved is listed through the medical terminology exhibit B (pre-trial). The attachment of an opinion based upon misunderstood criteria to anyone, is prejudicial! I have now experienced this prejudice, applied to me, in part, by "mercy hospital"; now covenant medical center, many times. The avoidance of me, is/has become normal, through this terminology. Therefore the emergency room staff though wrong, is viewed by me as prejudicial, but similar to society's reaction. The fact that they watched monitors from afar and reacted with concern, (pg 6 line 13 initial case pre-trial) is sufficient NOT to charge me, as any other patient; but they reacted similarly to the majority with concern. The doctor has no excuse. The hospital has no excuse either, for failure to hear my complaint. It is not to my benefit to enter public court, nor is it my desire; but it is my duty.

Again this is expected to be a landmark case and as such, citations or precedents (to the best of my knowledge) do not exist. Arguably: this case needed to be developed to this state, prior to including the public at large!

I, the plaintiff, do expect a full and fair hearing. Property is at stake, freedom's are at stake, lives are altered.

I the plaintiff, do expect the definition found "the judiciary; John R. Schmidhauser": "the judiciary serves as a neutral arbiter of relations between equals before the law. It assumes the responsibility for safeguarding economic rights, such as contract or property, and protecting non-economic rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion...." to be applied.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

It is herein noted: no correspondence has been received by the plaintiff from the appellate court regarding this matter except: one letter dated Oct 7, 1993 stating "oral arguments (if requested) during the month of February 1994." and its docketing order Robert Steigman

one letter dated Oct 28, 93 from the defense: Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey including the motion to dismiss & the memorandum of law, then one letter from the appellate court dated Nov 5, 93; appeal dismissed. Nothing else

The court at one week dismissed my cause based upon; one mailing from the defendant (order #4-93-0847)

1 The court is called upon to examine RULE 343 (a) the plaintiff suggests; all requirements of time WERE accepted as complete (to date) by the court (letter and docketing order Oct 7, 93)

2. RULE 343 (C) the plaintiff suggests; even if this were not so, an affidavit is not shown. Nor is there cause to expect less than 14 days after the entry date filed and notice given.

An explanation is demanded by this plaintiff!

Review is sought at the supreme court level, no petition for rehearing was filed. BIAS is indicated and defined by: "legal error is serious enough to amount to misconduct when judges deny individuals their basic or fundamental rights......to a full and fair hearing....."

I, the plaintiff/ appellant, James F. Osterbur, came to the justice system expecting simple neutral arbitration, in a case (though medical initially) which can be defined as a failure to provide contractual services ( services received by me, which I consider below a minimum acceptance level). My complaint, "it is extortion to be required to pay for services Not received; when viewed by minimum standards." (initial case filed pre-trial). My complaint was, NOT only MUTE, to covenant medical center BUT even denied the access to define the problem. Monopoly & price fixing & rights, therein became the expected remedy through the court system. The court system has REFUSED to be involved, or does not have suitable authority NECESSARY for these important issues!! NEED, established the parameters involved within the proposed "amended case 92-c-1222". Those parameters are EQUALITY AND FAIR PLAY, for the public at large.

JUSTICE IS A REALITY, NOT A RULE!

Authority: (4) a judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard....." cannon 3. Commentary: exclusion through minor procedural infraction WITHOUT notice or opportunity to correct IS NOT JUSTICE.

The judiciary.......is often described as an institution that resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures. ( the judiciary, John R. Schmidhauser) commentary: constitutional issues are raised; the judicial office is a PUBLIC TRUST!

I, James F. Osterbur do declare a true and correct copy of these documents shall be delivered to the office of Thomas, Mamer, & Haughey at their office champaign Il before Nov 19,93.

APPELLATE COURT gen 4-93-0839 from champaign 92-c-1222

The docketing statement in the above entitled cause was received and filed...accelerated.....rule 343. set case for feb 94......

APPELLATE COURT appeal dismissed. Nov 5, 93

ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT

Plaintiff has filed documents......the record is not certified......personal files. ....does not comply with form and contents of briefs.....rule 341 -344. Defendant has filed motion to dismiss or in the alternative a motion for a pre-trial conference. ....the court concludes that the brief filed...is grossly insufficient under supreme court rules. ....Plaintiff's failure to file a coherent brief renders review impossible. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed. Appeal DISMISSED Nov. 5, 93

OATH OF OFFICE ETC art 6 CL. 3 Note 8. REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED BY OATH .....the constitution alone, as it is written, is the sole test ..........The first duty assumed by each judge under his oath of office is to support the federal and state constitutions;........

THE JUDICIARY John R. Schmidhauser .....resolves conflicts on the basis of fair, predictable, and objective principles and procedures......involving corrupt use of the legal system and the arrogant manner......

OFFICIAL IL COURTS COMMISSION REPORTS

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

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

COMMON LAW AND COMMON-LAW LEGAL SYSTEMS

...the law, ceasing to be the reflection of ancient custom, became a tool useful for building a better future. ...a difference of more than mere words.....

SUPREME COURT RULES pg xx

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

JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND ETHICS

2.04. TOWARD LITIGANTS .....we take this opportunity to remind ourselves as judges that "tyranny is nothing more than Ill-used power...........stating a judge, "must lean over backward and err on the side of making sure that he does not intimidate the parties from pursuing legitimate claims.....

STATE OF ILLINOIS appellate court 4^th district

10/5/93 RE gen 4-93-0847 Champaign #92-c-1222

TABLE OF CONTENTS

pages 1-3 points & authority/ 3-4 summary of case 92-s-1561/ 4-5 summary of case 92-c-1222/ 5 line 11-13 a duty identified/ 5-6 jurisdiction/ 7 law and the public citizen/ 8-10 introduction 11 brief / 12 question of authority/ 13-16 MONOPOLY/ 14-15 defendant has made legal claim/ 15 unconstitutional/ 16 the common defense/ 17 harassment/ 17-18 legally binding question/ 18 line 9-14 improper procedure/ 19 jurisdiction applied/ 19-20 constitutional decree/ 21 line 1-3 scope and need/ 21 line 4-10 cause of action/ 21 line 10-16 relief sought/ 22 line 1-4 right of counsel/ 22 line 5-10 public needs/ 22 line 11-16, pg 23 line 1-4 DUE PROCESS / 23 precedent/ 23 line 15-16, pg 24 line 1-5 NOT political/ 24 magnitude/ 25 names of counsel/

The prepared statements which are a part of motion trial 92-c-1222 by the plaintiff reflect the overall attitude and display a legal summary of this case.

TAKEN FROM the pre-trial Osterbur v. Covenant sent with the appeal

GEN # 4-93-0847 MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ........moves...to dismiss...... 1. the plaintiff ...represented himself pro se......attempting to appeal ...pro se.. 2. the plaintiff has filed.....court has accepted...along with a brief. 3. the defendant ....received "pre-trial documents....plus remainder of trial 92-c-1222 ...purports to be the report of proceedings...to be filed. 4. the court has ruled.....on or before dec 17, 93. 5. the ..brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (1) in that it does not include points and sub points in the argument or citation of authorities required. 6. the ...brief does not comply with IL supreme court rule 341 (e) (2) in that there is no statement of the nature of action. 7. the brief provided does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) (3) in that it does not provide a statement of the issue or issues presented for review. 8. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (4) in that it does not provide a brief statement or explanation of the jurisdictional basis of appeal except to cite two irrelevant portions of the US constitution. 9. the brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e)(5) in that to the extent this brief questions the operation of certain statutes or constitutional provisions, those provisions are not provided or cited. 10. The brief does not comply with supreme court rule 341 (e) 96) in that there is no coherent statement of facts included in the brief and certainly no reference to any pages of the record on appeal by which the defendant could discern the context or chronology of the "facts" scattered throughout the brief. 11. the brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (7) in that the argument as provided does not explain the reasons for the contentions ...citation....or any references... 12. The brief does not comply with Il supreme court rule 341 (e) (8) in that there is no conclusion and no statement of the precise relief sought by the plaintiff... 13. contrary to Il supreme court 342, there is no appendix to the brief. Wherefore, the defendant states that it is incapable of responding.....appeal be dismissed

In the alternative, the defendant requests under Il supreme court rule 310 that the court appoint a judge who will not participate in the decision of the case to preside at a pre-hearing conference to attempt to discern the issues which the plaintiff wishes to be heard on appeal....

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

.....dismiss the pending appeal.: 1. the brief....ruled inadequate. 2. in Boeger v. Boeger .....the court in referring to the appellants pro se brief stated....... 3. In Waitcus V. Village of Gilberts....the court found the appellants brief lacking ...... 4. in the case Application of Anderson.... the court pointed out. 5. In Britt v. Federal land bank ass'n of St. Louis.....the court commented: 6. The brief and other material filed....because....plaintiff explain why he is disagreeing with the trial court judge or what relief he is suggesting from the appellate court....dismiss the appeal

RULE 341 (a) page limitations./ b. Cover/ c. References to parties/ d. Citations/ e. Appellants brief (1) summary statement "points and authorities"/ (2) an introductory paragraph stating the nature of the action and of the judgment appealed from and whether...jury...and whether any question is raised on the pleading./ (3) a statement of the issue or issues presented for review, without detail, or citation of authority./ (4) a statement of jurisdiction/ (5) in a case involving ....constitutional provision......its pertinent text shall be set forth in an appendix./ (6) statement of facts, which shall contain all facts necessary to an understanding of the case....with appropriate reference to the pages of the record on appeal, or to the pages of the abstract...../ (7) argument, which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor..../ (8) brief of appellee or other parties/ (g) reply brief/ (h) supplemental brief on leave to appeal.....as a matter of right.....the points and authorities in the supplemental brief need relate only to the contents of that brief

RULE 342 Appendix to the brief- abstract (a) ....a copy of .....and a complete table of contents, with page references of the record on appeal. the table shall state 1. the nature of..../ 2. .....the date of filing..../ 3. The names of witnesses (b) Abstract (c) cases brought to supreme court from appellate court .......copies.... (d) entire record available (E) costs.

RULE 343 times for filing and serving briefs

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

[from the court: appeal denied]