-
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
REDRESS OF THE PEOPLE
(Primary document sent to the USSC)
THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
as represented by,
JAMES BOX 103 ROYAL, IL 61871
(will be changed for court purposes)
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A DIRECT APPEAL, A DISTINCT DEMAND, ESTABLISH THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND SUBMIT TO ITS AUTHORITY, SPECIFICALLY THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO A LEGAL "REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES".
A DIRECT APPEAL, A DISTINCT DEMAND, ESTABLISH THE THIRD ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, SPECIFICALLY "JUDGES, BOTH OF THE SUPREME AND INFERIOR COURTS, SHALL HOLD THEIR OFFICES DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR...." (UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR, BY THE PUBLIC'S STANDARD, SHALL RESULT IN DISMISSAL) A PUBLIC RIGHT AND AUTHORITY!
A DIRECT APPEAL, A DISTINCT DEMAND, ESTABLISH THE INALIENABLE RIGHT, TO BE EQUAL TO THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY. SOLIDIFY OUR RIGHT TO CONTEST A BILL, AFTER TREATMENT, IN A COURTROOM IF NECESSARY. DIGNIFY OUR INALIENABLE RIGHT TO BE SUFFICIENT IN OURSELVES, TO ESTABLISH PAYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, ANYTHING LESS IS A HOSTAGE SITUATION, OR AN EXTORTION. (NO ONE CHOOSES EMERGENCY)
A POLITICAL RIGHT IS: to suggest alternate methods by which society may function, BY VOTE.
A LEGAL RIGHT IS: The Dignity, and the HONOR, and the METHOD to insure EQUALITY, irregardless of current practice or law. EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS HONOR, until society takes it away illegally, this case is built upon that illegal action or inaction, as is CLEARLY SHOWN throughout the judicial cases preceding this action.
JURISDICTION IS APPLIED AS: THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY "....ON SUCH PRINCIPLES, AND ORGANIZING ITS POWERS IN SUCH FORM, AS TO THEM SHALL SEEM MOST LIKELY TO EFFECT THEIR SAFETY AND HAPPINESS!"
LEGAL STANDING: "THAT ALL MEN HAVE CERTAIN INHERENT RIGHTS": this case represents CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS that have been illegally seized from the people; the right of redress, of an honest court, of a fair and honorable protection from the oppression of illness and emergency establishing the right to enjoy life and liberty through EQUALITY and from its meaning, FREEDOM!
LEGAL RIGHT: FREEDOM, exists ONLY among those who are willing to pay for it. The constitution Relies upon adherence to the intent, the people rely upon adherence to the words.
"LET THE WORDS BE TRUE"
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
FILED UNDER ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
CONTENTS
FORMAL APPEAL PG 1
CASE SUMMARY PG 2-8
ABSTRACT PG 8-19
BRIEF PG 19-22
MEMORANDUM PG 22-23
MEDIA RELEASE PG 23-30
CASE SUMMARY
This case selects the courtroom realities of a citizen to represent the Realities facing the people, of this Nation. Given the degree of ABUSE, "Treasonable conduct", and constitutional cancer, associated with one person's trip through the court system and the medical industry. It IS DEMANDED the inalienable RIGHT, of the first amendment of the constitution of the United States be IMPLEMENTED, as written, and more importantly, AS INTENDED!
The words which apply...."A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES." Established before the Nation to assert, identify, correct, and solidify the Reality of our inheritance, OUR CONTRACT, TO DIE IF NECESSARY, to protect the meaning and the true intent of the Constitution, its preamble, and the Bill of Rights!
The United States Government is hereby charged with FAILURE to conform the Judiciary to the Constitution, as applied to the cases hereby presented, OR to its INTENT, with regard to: "A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES" and as otherwise noted throughout the trials and appeals listed, and as may be added through class action.
The DEMAND: Establish the RIGHT, to a redress of grievances by formally, DELIBERATELY, erecting the means and methods necessary to implement this first amendment RIGHT! Within this case, and each additional case as shall surely follow.
The Medical Industry IS confronted with the charge: THIS IS NOT FREE ENTERPRISE! And therefore cannot be treated as such.
The DEMAND: Control the monopoly, separate FAIR billing from extortion, and recognize Reality and its methods: HONOR, and the FAIR EXCHANGE, of a percentage of wealth!
The State of Illinois is charged with Failure to adequately oversee their Judicial branch, and Failure to contend for the citizen, NOT against!
The DEMAND: Establish Equality and honor, through respect. Return the ILL supreme court to, OF THE PEOPLE (the Most Blatant example of tyranny: the rules of the court demand the word PRAYER be used in addressing the court; its meaning, to speak to god, CLEARLY NOT OF THE PEOPLE). Return the appeals to FOR THE PEOPLE, rules of procedure are NOT justice, they are simply excuses for non-involvement, and become corruption. Establish the circuit court as, BY THE PEOPLE, we are due respect no matter what our individual station might be, a fair hearing and REASONABLE justice ARE DUE the citizen.
The federal court prefers: DO NOT exercise your constitutional rights, They might change things! THIS IS a personal, NOT a judicial concept.
The Federal appeals Court Justices cannot use ignorance as an excuse, they deliberately refused to obey constitutional mandate, and issued statements intended to deny without cause, a citizens constitutional right. A Statement that can only be understood as, "LAUGHING AT THE LAW, AND RIDICULING THE PETITIONER"!
The DEMAND: remove them, without pension, UNLESS verification exists their past deserves another chance, in which case, they deserve to be demoted to a lower court.
I, JAMES F. OSTERBUR, DO stand as a victim of Unconstitutional, Deliberate, Judicial treason. My life, My Values, My Freedoms are at the Foundation of these controversies and I, have been attacked, WITHOUT CAUSE! The binding force of this argument enlarges from an illegal abuse of courtroom procedures (the failure to adhere to FUNDAMENTAL, Due Process of Law), the right to be informed of all charges prior to a courtroom proceeding, the undeniable right of the fourteenth amendment, to equal protection under the law, and ends upon Article 3, section 1 of the Constitution ....."the judges, both of the supreme and inferior court, shall hold their offices during good behavior...."
It is hereby demanded, the purpose and the definition of these words, THIS REDRESS, be given meaning according to the intent and written obligation of the Constitution of the United States, A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIZEN AND THOSE HIRED. The obligation IS clear, the words are binding, and the RIGHT to remove is authorized. ESTABLISH THIS LEGAL REDRESS, INFORM THE PUBLIC, AND SUBMIT TO THEIR AUTHORITY!
These words, this case, DOES NOT represent a single circumstance, but are the accumulation of distinct contempt, unwarranted and destructive, by/as seen in, the select cases set forth. The state of Illinois being inquired upon for help, chose to be the aggressor (refusing its DUTY) and becomes implicated by the RIGHT of its jurisdiction over the court system of the State of Illinois (the state represents all its citizens, and therefrom gets its jurisdiction). Any attempt to suggest, the people are unprotected from judicial corruption (through the constitution) OR should the court FAIL TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, (STATE OR FEDERAL), IS TREASON! Any attempt to suggest an answer shall be less than: (the BILL OF RIGHTS) to know, "WHICH RIGHTS DO PERTAIN TO THEM AND THEIR POSTERITY, AS THE BASIS AND FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT", is a destruction of liberty and a plundering of freedom! The State IS an overseer assigned through the office of the attorney general and its own Constitution, to ADHERE to all constitutional (state and Federal) DIRECT DEMANDS, that apply to specific citizen guards against despotism.
The cases represented CLEARLY establish: the courtroom has a Ruler, NOT a judge, those hired to guard the people FAIL, the lack of money prejudices and predetermines the outcome, the lack of a legal education REMOVES the sovereign Right, to REALISTICALLY protect yourself, your family, or your property. These things transform legal rights to the Reality of, "will they (the judiciary) grant constitutional truths, or let the " wolves" devour, in a game (if you don't have every punctuation mark, every specialized word or phrase, every "grain of sand" neatly in place, you the litigant may simply be discarded) only a few people are allowed to play." (Only lawyers, and those with excess money). This is far closer to the reality, of this day, (in my own cases it didn't matter even if everything was neatly in place) than fundamental justice. TRUTH expects and constitutional GUARANTEES are described as: EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! WHERE IS IT, if it can't be found, then employees MUST BE REPLACED, and RESPECT, REBORN!
THE SIMPLE AND PLAIN:
From the Illinois Preamble to the Constitution, Supreme law, Constitution, section 1, subsection 3, Quote "The Constitution is the Supreme law, and every citizen is bound to obey it, and every court is bound to enforce its provisions, leaving court NO discretion to enforce or not enforce a provision according to his judgement as to its wisdom or whether public good will be subserved by disregarding People V. Sholem 1920, 294 ILL
204, 128 N.E. 377.
A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE RECORD
The initiating action case 92-S-2991; can judgement be issued upon a charge NEVER MADE, or formally implied? And therefrom is it illegal to apply a criminal charge, FRAUD, to a defendant who has NEVER been charged. Is this beyond the scope or intent of constitutional Due Process? Does the authority who removes himself from the bench to become the prosecutor and issue this charge, remove himself from the scope and intent of constitutionally applied authority? Rather, as seen within the protection of the sixth amendment, the fifth amendment, and the fourteenth amendment, as well as the Bill of Rights, the charge issued (NOTICED), by definition is a criminal charge and the Right of the defendant is completely clear.
The Initiating action, case 4-93-0441; Judgement as given, is without doubt, a CLEAR AND SUBSTANTIAL SUBVERSION of the intent of Constitutional law, A complete FAILURE of the preamble citations, and their honest intent defined by, the constitution of the state of Ill, and a Fundamental attack upon the rights of those dependant upon a FAIR JUDICIARY. This then, to reduce the court to "either the citizen or the judge" are the actions of the state of Ill appellate judges.
The state of Ill, FAILS the test, as seen in the Judicial Inquiry board Nov 23, 1993, to support and defend the citizen through the constitution, THIS LITERALLY IS THEIR JOB!
The initiating action case 76128 of the Supreme court of Ill. Examined as Reliance upon Judicial Canon 2. The public interest, quote, "courts exist to promote justice, and thus serve the public interest. Their administration should be speedy and careful. Every ......the courts for the litigants. Judicial canon 3. Constitutional Obligations, quote, "it is the duty of all judges in the U. S. to support the federal constitution and that of the state whose laws they administer; in so doing, they should fearlessly observe and apply fundamental limitations and guarantees.
From the supreme court of Ill, was asked, (case 4-93-0441) SHOW ME THE LAW, and defend the judicial supposition that a procedural rule is greater than LAW OR JUSTICE OR CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES. Their reply, "Denied", can only be interpreted as, "the fundamental rights of an individual citizen are beneath our comment, AND is devoid of consequence to the court. Reality therefore dictates intervention in matters of justice; Must be PAID FOR or will be discarded". Further, the court was asked, examine the documents and establish proof, reasonable compliance was NOT made! The court FAILED, according to judicial canon 22. Review: quote, "In order that a litigant may secure the full benefit of the right of review accorded to him BY LAW, a trial judge should scrupulously grant to the defeated party opportunity to present the questions arising upon the trial exactly as they arose, were presented, and decided, by full and fair bill of exceptions or otherwise; any failure in this regard on the part of the judge is peculiarly worthy of condemnation because the wrong done may be irremediable. I, a litigant, received ABUSE NOT JUSTICE, during trial, a MOCKERY OF JUSTICE during appeals, and NO RESPECT for constitutional decree or inalienable rights from the supreme court, not even an attempt.
These things brought suit to Federal district court case 94-2001: According to the "ex parte young" exception which allows federal court to hear suits against state officials if, the suit seeks to force them to conform their conduct to federal law. Federal Jurisdiction chapter 2:12 page 89, "other limitations of judicial review".
In 94-2001, the Fundamental constitutional question begins: Shall the power of the Judiciary OR Authority of the people preside; (the judiciary has already been shown as ruler rather than judge in the lower court cases, the state official board of Inquiry has NO authority, and the Rule, has replaced both law and justice.)
So begins the primary expression: WE THE PEOPLE, establish the power and authority of government! The Constitution and Bill of Rights, DO establish the Directive from/for the people, which is: "Use these WORDS, to conform government to the people, NOT people to the government!"
Federal court refers to these issues as FRIVOLOUS.
The Fundamental principles of government, THE REALITY OF LAW, then, COULD BE/MUST BE, CHOSEN OR REARRANGED, OR REVIEWED, BY VOTE, NOT merely legislated. Citations listed throughout 94-2001 and this case substantiate the call AND THE RIGHT, to return to: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and clearly defines the need/right to make an informed vote, within constitutional guidelines, ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES/LAWS themselves, AS THIS IS TRUE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, AND THE HONEST INTENT OF THOSE WHO DIED FOR THIS RIGHT and gave us the first amendment right TO, A redress of grievances! FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE.
EVALUATION BEGINS UPON the charge of collusion, between the government and the medical industry; the second series of facts, realities, and betrayal. Be it recognized the purpose of the words IS, to improve not destroy!
I, James F. Osterbur, DO state a situation of ABUSE, OPPRESSION, and accusations of a libelous nature, enjoined by the medical society upon me, produced the cause and serious injuries sustained by me, and initiated fundamental LEGALIZED extortion by reason of NO possibility to challenge, even through the court system. This result forms the basic allegiance between medicine and government, against the inalienable rights of citizenship, freedom of the press, the guarantee of "freedom of religion", and the principles upon which liberty and freedom reside.
The right of citizenship granted: by the Bill of Rights 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." JUSTICE with regard to medical billing demands the opportunity to contest a bill, (THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE), yet the court says, IN A DISTINCT MATTER OF COMMERCE, "there is no law: even though any other business dealing demands a fair appraisal be made, and in section 11 of the bill of rights; that in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred." How can JUSTICE say to me, "pay anything they ask, you have NO Rights, these are exempt from common ethical/legal practices", OR from substantiating the right to bill (does a worker not have to EARN his salary)? How can the state of IL, say to me, go pay the doctor, and ask him/her if I can be ALLOWED to enter court,(section 2-622 IL code) where the judge must then be considered as "window dressing", since he has NO say, and NO authority, Is this Constitutional, or is this hypocrisy?
My own history became intertwined with medical Realities at an earlier time, and without doubt initiated the extremely poor treatment I received; that became the primary point of contention. The medical society IS found in contempt, within the concept, that they can understand and describe a/any human being within a simple word or phrase, is this reality. Yet these same people will admit no such word or phrase, arbitrarily applied to them, identifying their behavior or intellect exists, creating a separate environment. So it is that they would brand me and others, and did so without my consent, without public trial, without ANY UNDERSTANDING OR DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND.
Regarding any behavior seen as different, It IS my right, to proceed with christian forbearance, love, and Duty, to seek knowledge, to obtain understanding, and to grasp wisdom, with a direct regard for my CREATOR. Whether any other man/woman/or child may agree or not, SO LONG AS, I do not hurt anyone, even though I may suffer for it a little! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF FREEDOM!
This conflict as represented, is NOT, "do you agree": This conflict IS: can they LABEL, and thereby create deliberate harm, Without consent, without trial, without so much as listening for 5 minutes to the person, upon which the medical establishment impels their own brand of Religious Fervor upon! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF TYRANNY? WHAT THEN IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, and to whom does it belong!
The constitutional question becomes: Is the Bill of Rights, section 16, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not be force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other"! IS THIS, "a FAIR AND ACCURATE STATEMENT", respecting the freedom to choose, in this society, OR NOT? OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE, IS THE ISSUE HERE!
The Reality of choice does NOT initiate, right or wrong as a question or an answer, choice is the essence of freedom itself, within a minimal set of boundaries. The definition of ANY man or woman formally imprisons, and separates that person, and extends abuses; in doing so, the medical society has not only exceeded its authority, but entered into the grounds of slander, libelous and defamatory statements, oppression, and more.
The relief that was sought: Removal of blatant tyranny, the control of other people, through labeling. The use of any expression describing a person, by the medical profession, shall be limited to ACTUAL NEED, OR serious Criminal behaviors. Life through its various expressions shall be respected, even if not understood. This shall distinctly apply, to all forms of labeling, such as "genetic marking", and so on, BUT would not apply to serious cases of infectious, highly contagious, disease.
The medical society having defined my existence as dependant upon them, then established an identity they assigned to me, in their records, as less than capable of being human; within their own idolatries, this then may be seen, as the seeds of human ways and ignorance, which produce hatred, if allowed.
Medical files are not secret, access is granted in many ways, even so, ought not freedom and liberty be greater than opinion? Man and woman and child exist in life together, through "calm or storm", those who lose their grasp, or choose a different path, are still equal.
The relief that was sought: Remove the Monopoly from me/us. Medicine has achieved control through labeling, through billing, through control of public information, through control of the supply of doctors entering the medical profession by limited access to college, through control of products used, no competition (for the patient), through unconstitutional law, IL code of civil procedure 2-622, for example. The lack of an hourly rate (or part thereof) for services rendered, and no allowance for the outcome of a procedure or service or product. IN SIMPLE TERMS ESTABLISH FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT! (including billing)
THE ONLY FAIR METHOD, IS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME AND OR WEALTH. IS NOT YOUR BODY JUST AS IMPORTANT TO YOU, AS MINE TO ME, IF SO THEN BECAUSE EMERGENCY IS NOT A CHOICE, WE SHOULD ALL BEAR THE BURDEN EQUALLY. THE RICH MAN/WOMAN DOESN'T GO TO WAR, THE POOR MAN/WOMAN PAYS FOR WAR, THE GREATER PRICE IS HERE, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO! Like it or not war established this nation, and has been necessary, AS WELL AS, ABUSED!
ABSTRACT
THE QUESTION; Is this Equal protection under the law?
The legal battle began: A short time after my second experience, (I entered with heart pains) with the hospital, I know a heart attack occurred, being of much greater pain and intensity, yet the treatment I received initially caused me to choose death or disability, as preferable to the treatment I received, from them. Having survived that, the bill comes for the previous visit; being SLANDERED, ABUSED, AND REJECTED. The hospital says,"I have no rights, pay the bill".
The court is asked to intervene 92-S-1561: I ask the court make them hear my complaint, and if not as a citizen, make them listen according to the law, which they gave me access to, the social security act, as described. The judge refuses, acknowledging to their lawyer, between tapes, she doesn't understand the social security act, has no comprehension, and issues judgement anyway.
The controversies enlarge 92-C-1222: I ask the court, make it possible for all citizens to seek and obtain a FAIR AND ACCURATE billing, for services, as received, JUSTIFY THE BILL, (the statement did not reflect the poverty of the treatment); a situation that exists in all/every other business. The Judge says, I cannot, there is no law! Even a house has an inspector, to oversee the work, yet the hospital is free, where was the possibility to be heard, I LOOKED EVERYWHERE.
The controversy enlarges gen 4-93-0847: I ask the court, how can a state law section 2-622 REMOVE the Judiciary from its Constitutional Obligation, according to article 3, section 2.1 "The Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity....". The court replies, "failure to file coherent brief".
The controversy enlarges Ill 76450: I ask the court, Is this not tyranny, TO REDUCE JUSTICE to only a lawyer has rights, ONLY a doctor can decide to initiate justice, when in truth any JURY formed from the citizenry would have easily understood the brief in question? The court replies, DISMISSED!
The legal issues which have arisen each indicate an utter failure, with regard to Constitutional doctrine and EquaL (INALIENABLE) Rights, as well as, a usurpation of power by the state of Ill, through section 2-622; creating law destructive to the constitution of the United States of America, and in DIRECT contention with its most basic principle, access to a fair court.
The federal court in 94-2060: I ask the court, this medical profession has obtained a complete MONOPOLY over me/us, there is NO JUSTICE, this must change! The court replies, "Frivolous"!
The controversy continues in Federal Appeals court through 94-1943 and 94-1944: I ask, What happened to Our Constitutional GUARANTEE, what happened to "let the law decide, not the judge"? The court replies: "In a manner completely defiant to, a fair hearing", in a way which exposes an invasion from within, has occurred!
The United States Supreme Court is next: I ask, investigate corrupt practice and policies, and FIX IT! The clerk of the court replies: change to a writ of certiorari, a writ which allows the court to dismiss without cause! I REFUSE, being certain no justice will occur if an option is given. The clerk blockades becoming the judge himself, IS this legal OR is this an obstruction of justice?
The various governmental committees ASSIGNED TO WATCH OVER, the Justice system of the U.S., are sent a short letter and evidence to indicate the clerk has exceeded his authority. One senator replies, to say its none of his business.
THE ARGUMENT
These two series of courtroom controversy elicits the question: How many other people does this happen to, to what degree does money interfere with justice, what happened to HONOR?
The second question: Is a simple explanation insufficient, does the constitution belong only to the lawyer?
The third question: Irregardless of how the wording is portrayed, is there not sufficient evidence to indicate, Justice would demand a reasonable effort and hearing?
The fourth question: When did the words called the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, become so murky they could not be seen or understood?
The fifth question: Reality indicates no one controls the Justice department, it is assumed they can do it themselves, nothing could be farther from the truth; OR MONEY AND POWER, especially in the form of lawyers, others, CONTROLS THE COURT. Adherence to the law, and let the judge decide, are opposites.
The sixth question: Do lawyers contribute to justice and fair play, are lawyers the difference between right and wrong, what happened to SIMPLE TRUTH? The difference assigned to simple is: let honesty be sufficient, the law be FAIR, and let courage be the honor of a judge, NOT as opinion, RATHER as ears that hear, and a mind that works, WHEN combined with sufficient knowledge!
The seventh question: Do Judges, do rules of procedure, OR does constitutional adherence produce Social peace, freedom, liberty, and happiness?
The argument occurs how can a simple citizen declare such things to high officials in the government, what right exists for a citizen to expect some measure of the TRUE MEANING AND INTENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL INSTRUMENTS to be carried out.
The answer is found in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: "....that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a {REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES}, 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..."
The PRIVILEGE OF LIBERTY THROUGH JUSTICE, is identified AS constitutionally granted WITHIN the first Amendment: To the court I make my request within the clear and certain right/grant of that amendment, Establish a REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, that these things may be addressed by the people, and considered by the people, and fixed by the people, because there is no other way to remove and control corruption in government! That is the purpose of a redress, that is the method chosen by the constitution, and it does represent final control/authority to establish and confirm, "WE THE PEOPLE," shall determine our own destiny.
This request comes within the cause of; corruption, and denial of the peoples' authority, AND the Duty to defend the foundations of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice, and the honorable intent of Constitutional law (to firmly defend their RIGHTS, which do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government).
This then conforms action, to discipline, to words, that I/WE shall perform the duty of citizenship, written within the words: "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."
Let it be understood, it IS to defend constitutional rights, NOT alter, or abolish or supersede them, that this PEACEFUL DEMOCRATIC ACTION is established as a beginning to a more proper Reality, as was fought for/died for, to protect those of us who want freedom, AND are willing to pay for liberty.
WE are all capable of influencing OUR DESTINY, and together we hold the authority, BY VOTE, within our right.
The words of legal precedent establishing these implied powers, comes from
McCulloch V. Maryland (1819) "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all 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."
JUSTICE AND A FREE SOCIETY: The formation and comprehension of choice, describe freedom. It is Honor that recognizes and defends JUSTICE. We are a Society at peace, ONLY when liberty is understood as a duty, and the price DUTY requires, SIMPLY PUT IS:
LIFE responds to need, to mercy, and to injustice, so that each one may know FREEDOM.
To abandon any part of these things is to die a slow death, whether that abandonment is by an individual, community, Nation, or even the WORLD.
Fear of change, Rules many lives. It is true, change alters the social structure. The Reality is, Equality Justifies change, Inherent Rights signal the end, OR the beginning of liberty, respect forms the foundation of, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"!
Independence is an association between people and nation and RIGHT. The words contained herein are fundamental democracy, principals and realities of justice, liberty without violence, and freedom through duty. The questions, the answers, the examples exist as privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States.
No excuses will be accepted regarding time limitations, as the U.S. Supreme Court is BOUND, under the rule of Original Jurisdiction, to hear this pleading. AND, I do claim the time necessary to write, to hear from, the involved judicial committees of the U.S. government. AND, Do claim my first amendment right, respecting my choice not to proceed during the Christian Lenten season, and its EASTER SUNDAY! AND to delay through the summer season for my own reasons, It is my RIGHT, just as our possession, our right IS: A VOTE OF CONSEQUENCE! RESPECT NOT FATIGUE!
THIS IS A NEW UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE, AND IT STANDS ALONE, WITH EVIDENCE!
THE CONSTITUTION IS: A CONTRACT, WHICH REQUIRES ITS CITIZENS TO DIE FOR THE WORDS!
DUE TO THE GRAVITY OF THESE WORDS, AND THEIR REALITIES, THEN THE GOVERNMENT SHALL LIVE BY THE WORDS, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES! The obligation exists for fulfillment of the debt owed, by the officials of government, to the people. That debt being THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE CONSTITUTION, and the first amendment (in particular), AS WRITTEN.
RESOLUTION of these matters: " Establish the means, Identify the method, insure constitutional adherence, and secure the RIGHT of the American people to its Constitutional Guarantee; A peaceful Redress of Grievances, according to the first amendment, upon every issue they deem important!"
{BLATANT DISCRIMINATION; such as, the removal of freedom and equality, from those few over the age of sixty five, for the direct purpose, to control their behaviors through the requirements initiated by social security:"this is a denial of the right to be like "everyone else," and decide for themselves what will be," and IS A TYRANNY. WE ARE EQUAL AND FREE, OR WE ARE NOT, this is a "minor" redress issue compared to the rest, but a good place to start, "the next series"}.
Argument is mute, which suggests this is a political area, IT IS, a legal rights case, within and defined by, the constitution itself. This legal case is brought forth out of the courts themselves; and according to article 1, article 2, and article 3, the Judiciary IS SEPARATE.
The judiciary shall decide all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution....shall define treason, " a charge asserting constitutional hypocrisy, is a serious matter, involving the HEALTH of the nation."
ANY ATTEMPT BY THE COURT, TO OBSTRUCT OR DENOUNCE, THIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT: INITIATES THE RESPONSE, AN INVASION FROM WITHIN HAS OCCURRED, (an enemy is at the door). DO NOT belittle this legal action as personal or regarding men/women of the court, THIS LEGAL ACTION IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY ITSELF, FREEDOM, AND LIBERTY, UNDER THE LAW! (LAW SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE TRUE INTENT, THE WORDS OF RIGHT, FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND EQUALITY)!
Precedent Fenner V. Boykin 27 U.S. 240, 46 S. CT 492 (1926) "where it is necessary to prevent irreparable constitutional injury."
THE REMEDY, ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED BY THIS REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, as the first, NOT the last!
1. the controversy: INALIENABLE RIGHTS
topic: The difference between fundamental constitutional rights and ACTUAL functioning realities, as initially defined by the following legal cases and the composite description of an American heritage under SIEGE.
At issue: The right to control; who gives it, who protects it, who defines social behavior and its punishment?
Primary target: IS " Bill of Rights, and Constitutional LITERACY" throughout the court system, and the judiciary (WE MUST TEACH THEM, WHAT HONOR IS)! AND an HONOR BOUND EMPLOYEE, to carry out his/her reasonable DUTY!
Primary objective: Judicial guarantees and acceptance of, "If you are a judge, 3 major Ethical failures and your OUT/ NO PENSION", FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR and its to JAIL. The legal question: where does the constitution grant immunity to a judge, it is NOT article 3, Nor section 2 of the Bill of Rights!
Point of interest: Social peace IS dependant upon Social Justice and Equal Opportunity, NOT upon the words called law, Rather Peace IS dependant upon the INTENT of those laws; BEING FAIR TO LIFE ITSELF! The legal question: The Preamble of the Constitution AGREES, YES OR NO? These words do not release the judge to his/her own discretion, rather conforms the actions of law, the words of law, and the intent of law, to HONOR, RESPECT, AND DISCIPLINE; Not punctuation, not rules of procedure first, not a legal education, BUT an Inalienable and Inherent Right.
Point of Contention: The Judiciary cannot self-regulate or be allowed to review itself, it has failed. Legal question: Does a president impeach himself, it is the same for a judge.
Factual Ramifications:
1a. The citizen must be heard, in a usable statistical format; to assess the credible abilities of a judge, and thereby formulate the need for Public Ethical Review, and or promotion. Legal question: the people have a right? yes or no!
1b. The Judiciary shall be ADEQUATE to the task, the assumption that a court proceeding is fair: cannot be made when conducted by a judge, ILLITERATE, to the realities associated with specific knowledge or events, OR a Jury ILLITERATE to the realities associated with specific knowledge or events, that are pertinent to a FAIR DECISION! Reality will acknowledge, reliable witnesses are expensive and rare, some degree of expertise must be, a burden upon the system of justice to provide. Legal question: An informed decision requires sufficient understanding? yes or no!
1c. The functioning courtroom requires change: a Jury must operate within its MOST RELIABLE ABILITIES. These are; separating each trial, into its factual realities (a decision is made upon each specific issue raised, as yes or no. At the summation of courtroom proceedings a detailed formal brief, by the jury, contains Each Decision, an honorable evaluation of the importance of each decision: The juries final determination as an integral duty, and the PROBABILITY OF ERROR and if needed, formal request for special considerations on appeal). Legal question: Does this impede justice OR is this not, "the right to be informed of the nature and the cause"?
1d. Equal Justice means equal time/equal money! Every trial of importance (possible jail term of more than 90 days), deserves the same treatment. The amount of money/time spent must be the same for both sides. TO BE FAIR, the average cost and time for a specific type of trial must be calculated nationwide, then that amount of time/money shall be spent (BOTH SIDES). Anything beyond 25% of this total WILL NOT BE ALLOWED! Legal question: Is Justice for sale? Equality as seen in all civil rights cases and equal protection as defined in Education laws, strongly indicates protection, requires intervention and disciplinary measures!
{ The utter abuse of courtroom proceeding as seen in the O.J.SIMPSON case should never be allowed again. If a charge is made such as an entire police force or an individual has done something WRONG, then this case should stop and the police force or the individual charged and tried, before the simpson trial could be resumed, THE REALITY HERE "EVERYONE IS MAKING MONEY, PLAY THE GAME"! JUSTICE IS NOT A GAME!}
1e. An appeals process would be, much better served IF a print or video presentation were broadcast/produced, of agreed upon content, and distributed to the public. Constitutional questions, imprisonment, deserves as much involvement as possible. Legal question: The most effective guard against oppression, by law or by judge, IS Public involvement?
1f. It is VERY WRONG, to make an example of anyone! It is WRONG to make jail a place of leisure or a reward (college education). Let the inmates teach each other, AND let them earn the right to greater education by specific behaviors. Let the inmate work at jobs of value that might not be economical otherwise, such as salvaging old buildings, repairing old appliances or furniture, recycling and reforestation, etc. As is common to this nation, the inmate should EARN the right to better, above a minimum standard, situations by reasonable work and social ethics.
1g. IT IS WRONG, to allow dangerous individuals back into society, the RIGHT of the majority IS PEACE, THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT. The reward is, punishment for bad behavior, NOT a reduction in time for good behavior. The Inmates themselves KNOW, who is dangerous and who is not, and to a large extent so do the guards. A Vote, by secret ballot will/would revoke probation and send a dangerous person away, elsewhere, a different prison. This Vote of the inmates themselves Will lengthen or shorten EVERY INMATES' SENTENCE, DEPENDENT UPON: Whether the people they let out do well, or hurt someone else!
The question develops, what is the right to lengthen a sentence? The answer is criminal activity has no measure of social harm, But society must pay additionally for every repeat offender, for every infraction. Justice would grant exclusion to the first time offender, but an additional percentage of time, for every repeat criminal, per return. BUT, society must ensure the Freed man/woman HAS a reasonable opportunity and some support. Legal question: The bill of rights section 3, " Instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people....." allows the right to reform, and demands a fair opportunity?
1h. EQUAL PENALTIES, the reality is simple, an accident is an accident, it is a mistake, a price associated with societies decisions about itself, NOT a crime. "Social security" is the appropriate avenue for relief, for the victim, personal relief for the family is life insurance (mandatory with any young dependant, a cost associated with social security, but through private insurance).
A crime does cost society, and society has a distinct right to re-imbursement, from the person not the family.
An accident associated with "flawed behavior", should have a calculable cost. The public must vote on and accept those punishments and their well-defined limitations before they become effective, SUCH AS the penalties for drunk driving? etc.
All people, find JUSTICE TO BE FAIR, as men/women can make it, when we are forewarned, when the punishment is known and agreed upon beforehand, BY SOCIETY, BUT WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS, and when the judicial officers are of good character, (It is necessary to make allowances for juveniles, whose conduct was ignorance due to youth)! In one form or another the bill, is sent to the taxpayer for all courtroom proceedings. It is then Fair, for the public, to establish limits, for themselves. Legal question: Does not amendment 9, "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." speak directly to this, and defend the statement; Reality not Idolatry (excessive greed), is the foundation upon which the constitution depends.
1i. Changes have occurred in society making the individual vote, Educated as desired, a possibility which extends to the presidential election, and beyond, Abandon the electoral college! Legal question: Is this NOT the true intent of the constitution and Bill of Rights, to give to the people governmental authority, through one person, one vote? yes or no?
2. The CONTROVERSY: EQUALITY
Topic: To establish reality as; " A medical emergency is an invasion of the citizen, and as such the description of HOSTAGE applies. The degree of violence being fought with, IS: life, health, and future prosperity. The relationship to self-defense, OR self-imposed, personally accepted debt, is minimal if at all; the common denominator, everyone is at risk!
Do the words of the Declaration of Independence, "...we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." Conform duty, to responsibility, to administer authority over such entities as the medical industry, which DO have immediate and dramatic control to remove and deprive any citizen, of their property, without legal consent (the signing of a contract under physical/mental DURESS), nor bound by reasonable law, if any law at all. Is this not a taking; of security, blessings, property, and privileges of that hostage?
Because the situation exists that medicine requires money the Ethical question: would not a maximum percentage of income apportioned to property, as payment, per person, or with children, per family, become "MY FAIR SHARE"! Does a percentage based upon the medical problem represent, EQUAL PROTECTION? In this way the rich and the poor are affected in similar ways, sickness or accident is not a chosen freewill debt, how it affects the citizen should be the same for everyone, even here the poor will still suffer worse, than the rich. Those with no money will do community service.
Primary target: The functioning reality of " the business of medicine ". The emergency patient, those at risk of life and limb and health, establish a paramount NEED for assistance, beyond a citizens duty, "to do for yourself". This service, this need, this reality DICTATES: There is NO choice, PAY whatever, "they demand"! Failure to do so, can cripple or kill in many cases! Therefore an HONEST Evaluation of the term, "Business"; meaning each party has the clear and definite ability, and opportunity to walk away, UNHARMED, simply doesn't exist! This is a one-sided agreement where risk, associated with life and limb, prejudice the outcome, and FEAR produces acceptance, irregardless of the cost. A situation akin to extortion!
Primary Objective: To eliminate the concept of "business", from the realm of medicine. To establish Equality, among rich and poor. To define and implement FAIR treatment, including the bill!
The conceptual reality expected to solidify, "a FAIR AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" IS: Breaking up OR controlling, the MONOPOLY that medicine has achieved over the patient, as described within these series of cases, and possibly many others! Legal question: True or False; The redress of grievances, amendment 1, allows the orderly resolution of abuses, usurpations and despotism, as can be compiled among the people, and subjects their finding (by vote), to the foundations which form our most valuable laws and principles!
Point of Interest: The doctor/hospital IS merely the final link, in a VERY LONG LINE of people that contribute and describe the realities of medicine such as; The taxpayer who paid for the schooling, built the buildings, provided the loans, produced the tools, supplied the needs, cleaned the areas, feed and clothed each one, became the experiment, and died from the errors, WITHOUT EXCESS CHARGES!
The Reality of Medicine, It is the rivers of TEARS, that produced the results, the tears of those in desperate NEED, and the tears of those left behind, and those left to deal with the poverty of a bad solution. NO amount of Money, can fix/replace a broken body, the solution must be "what can honestly be done", THE NEED IS REAL!
Legal question: True or False; To be secure, to enjoy the freedom and independence, to obtain and benefit as happiness and safety allow, "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." section 3, Bill of Rights!
Point of Contention: The freedoms allowed under the Constitution DO NOT extend to situations which can so easily deprive and compel large portions of the population to "in effect" become slaves to the medical industry; such is the extent of billing ABUSE, common today! The rights of the citizenry to provide/produce restraint, having clearly, sufficient common interest, is not only reasonable, but a consequence of government according to the Bill of Rights, section 3, ...."instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people..." Legal question: The actions which challenge the concept of commerce, as applied to the medical industry, divide the question as commerce (subject to every aspect of the law regarding monopolies) OR a service/RESOURCE (subject to every aspect of governmental intervention), the peoples' choice!
Precedents include: German Alliance Insurance Co V. Lewis (1914) 233 U.S. 389 Justice Mckenna
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....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 a monopolistic character and "it is ILLUSIONARY to speak of a liberty of contract".......brings all under the
same governmental power....!
Munn V. Illinois 94 U.S. 113, 24 L.ED 77
Chief Justice Waite: .......private property "affected with the public interest, it ceases to be private only"....accepted without objection as an essential in the law of property ever since.....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......If they did not wish to submit themselves to such interference they should not have clothed the public with an interest in their concerns.
The Bill of Rights is to be considered, Democracies' INTENT. The preamble of the constitution is to be considered as pre-eminent to all other constitutional documents. Amendment 13 may be considered as a precedent, "to remove the accepted doctrine of the day because of the clear abuse of its citizens, therefore its fair." Amendment 10, "The powers.... are reserved.....to the people".
Factual Ramifications: Consequent to the change from a business to a resource, the issue of ownership arises. The function of society IS: to produce opportunity, NOT control. The method is to allow each separate division to be placed up for BIDS, within a hospital (any location providing more than one nurse, an one doctor). Someone supplies the building and its structural maintenance for a defined period (10 years). Someone supplies the medicines for a defined period (1 year), and so on.
The realities associated with doctor/nurse/ professional staff, may be structured in the same way as other workers, A BID, to take care of a specific shift, for a year at a time or so. Qualified professionals WILL be granted access to the facilities, BUT they will pay the holders of the bid, a set fee, DETERMINED BY THE PUBLIC for usage, per patient. IT IS UP TO THE PUBLIC TO SELECT OR REJECT, who shall receive the Bid, and define its limits, and its penalties, and CHOOSE what is in their best interest. Legal question: True or False; The foundation of free enterprise exists in greater measure by this method, than it does currently: CERTAINLY, it does for the public citizen/patient. The functional difference is: "The public shall inherit, MUCH GREATER CONTROL"! A simple law will establish the boundary.
2a. In the reality of life, it has become NECESSARY to define, "the miracle of living", as opposed to, "the reality of NATURES' CHOICE". It is a true saying, "someone has to pay". It is also a true saying, "the nation carries an IMMENSE DEBT"!
WE, as a society, one person one vote, MUST CHOOSE, "this/their condition, WE will not pay for"! REMEMBERING, whatsoever is decided, could befall YOU/ME or YOURS/MINE!
These words reflect REALITY, NOT judgement. Let the words which decide be completely clear; NATURE, the possibility of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, has disappeared, and desolation and death await. Legal Statement: The Jurisdiction of man is gone, upon the day nature/the natural process, "accomplishes the work called desolation (to be defined by vote)", irregardless of some minimum morality, ETHICALLY, it is time to go!
2b. WE, as a WORLD, are witness to the development of human intervention in the biological processes. The media in particular, call this "a brave new world". Yet the greatest possibility IS BIOLOGICAL WARFARE, from many avenues, and in many ways, of a type and kind, BEYOND ALL DESCRIPTION, EVEN EXTREME COULD BE INSUFFICIENT! Not by men/women but experiments OUT OF CONTROL! LET THEM PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT IT IS NOT SO!
We, as a world, deserve the opportunity to decide, "will men/women be allowed to proceed", in the ways that cast nature aside. By the methods, beyond any man/womans' or group of men/womens' control, or as a result of their control WE, AS A WORLD, ARE AT RISK!
LEGAL STATEMENT: The power to levy war, conclude peace......belongs to the nation, and therefore to its people!
LEGAL REALITY: WHO CAN BRING NATURE BACK, IF EVEN A SINGLE CRITICAL LINK IS DESTROYED! Do not surmise every link is known, they are NOT! It can be seen, Disease itself IS a critical link in survival, and the balance of nature. Disease is the guard or the army, that defends the genetic foundation of LIFE. Those things which alter the critical structure of species development, are sought out and eliminated through disease, being FORCED, not to reproduce! Disease also keeps a variety of specimens available of the same basic type, to insure and protect and establish, there is NO "perfect specimen". A change in micro-organisms can attack any, BUT NOT ALL, insuring the species itself shall survive. Disease also controls population explosions, insuring the survival of alternate species, and the environment itself.
These things and more, ARE HARSH REALITIES, BUT contrary to the popular LIE, (man/woman was mutated into existence). Disease keeps mutation from destroying man/woman!
LOVE, IS the single reality that allows freedom to exist, even when the consequence will be serious, the demand to choose extends to the reality of the decision, and its reward or failure; this is truth AND consequence!
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
REDRESS FOR THE PEOPLE
PETITIONER: THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN
as represented by: JAMES BOX 103 ROYAL, IL 61871
(will include the name, at court time.)
V
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PETITION FOR 1ST AMENDMENT: REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
BRIEF
A DIRECT APPEAL, is made under ORIGINAL (OBLIGATORY) JURISDICTION, to the United States Supreme Court.
This APPEAL is established within the first amendment of the federal Constitution: ......"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a Redress of Grievances."
This APPEAL initiates within the Courtroom, and involves: OPPRESSION (the loss of inalienable rights).
TYRANNY (the loss of respect for Justice, BY THE JUDGE)
Constitutional SUPREMACY (state and Judicial corruptions)
Medical MONOPOLY (medicine is NOT free enterprise)
OPPORTUNITY is hereby requested for inclusion of, Public Participation, in the form of a class action suit; Even though, the Constitution and judicial branch claim, "that a citizen may come to the seat of his government and conduct his business, and be heard, (the fourteenth amendment).
These issues and this evidence produce sufficient cause in the form of Constitutional deprivation, (WITHOUT DOUBT), to establish legal cause and procedure. HOWEVER, the Constitution is an instrument of the people, and THEY ARE ITS PROTECTOR! The Court is relied upon to investigate; to assure itself/me a directly involved public citizen/and the public at large, that this is at best an isolated case, and IF NOT, then "cleaning" is in order!
This Redress of Grievances requested, develops within the certain knowledge that the courtroom controversies (evidence/record), were handled within a "common citizens outcry for justice". That the average citizen would have done no better, and consequently the average citizen would have received no better result.
This fundamentally applies the principle of, ..."the right of the people peaceable to assemble and to petition....". It is the lack of evidence, the financial costs, stress, and an insufficient opportunity to be heard, that forces SUFFRAGE (the exercise of a right) of the citizenry; to wait until a suitable instrument is found. A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES! And this record of oppression, is used to initiate public participation, and the opportunity to develop literal, WE the People, AUTHORITY!
Within the evidence presented: An oppression will be found as; "failure of the court to provide DUE PROCESS~, the right to be informed, the taking of a property without opportunity to contest, a mock trial, AND Judicial corruption, all exist within documents associated with federal appeals case 94-1943. FURTHER, denial by procedural infraction, of inalienable and inherent rights granted by the Constitution, and enumerated by the fourteenth amendment, ARE DISTINCTLY ILLEGAL! AND WERE USED BY THE COURT, FLAGRANTLY, WITH INTENT TO SUBVERT JUSTICE!
Within the evidence presented: A tyranny plainly exists within federal appeals cases 94-1943 & 94-1944, wherein the judges in question rely upon; (my words) "an insignificant authority (precedent) COMPLETELY irrelevant to the appeals in question, forcing expulsion of the appeals by despotism."
Within the evidence presented: The questions of constitutional supremacy arise; can a state law section 2-622 IL code of civil procedure, OVERRULE article 3 section 2.1 "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity...." AND the fourteenth amendment section 1 ...."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.
Further, in the manner of judicial immunity, Does article 3 section 1 establish the CONSTITUTIONAL authority and rule ..."The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR,......" OR NOT?
Further, in the matter of JUSTICE, Does a rule of procedure as seen in the cases prior to appeals 94-1943 & 94-1944 OVERRULE THE LAW, and a citizens need, and the Constitutional demand, to provide Justice; NOT as a mock court, intent upon harassing the citizen, BUT an HONORABLE ADMINISTRATION OF TRUE JUSTICE, within the law. A rule is not a law, it is a format, NOT, expected or intended to be an abuse or injury to the people. True Justice would not fail to hear, or to act, because a minor procedural mistake is made, AND WOULD NEVER DESTROY OR HIDE, this is FEAR and TYRANNY and OPPRESSION, and TREASON!
Within the evidence presented: The medical Monopoly is established, by the quest for JUSTICE, identified as appeal 94-1944. This "legal journey, through the court" proves a suitable foundation for evaluation of the realities of commerce, and billing and labeling, and freedom, and Democracy! The DENIAL of, freedom of information (FREEDOM OF THE PRESS) RIGHTS associated with medicine, proves to be an integral reality associated with MEDICAL MONOPOLIES, (with the governments consent) establishing control, that controversies may not occur, depriving the citizen of duty and the liberty to right wrongs, as a public citizen might. (WE the people deserve, all relevant information, regarding realities that may COST OUR LIVES, health, and property, at "next day" intervals.) The government is guilty of refusing this right, BY allowing the medical establishment to refuse OUR RIGHT!
The definitions, of citizen rights, with regard to the medical realities of this time and place, deserve to be DERIVED FROM THE PEOPLE! Developed from billing abuses, patient rights abuses, courtroom abuses and NOT FREE ENTERPRISE situations which become extortion, CLEARLY establish, the time has come, the case is RIPE, and JUSTICE is REQUIRED! The Foundation and security of the people IS built upon FAIR, (TO ALL) PRINCIPLES, CONSENT IS FREEDOM, EQUALITY IS A DUTY, HONOR IS THE GUARD OF LIBERTY! THESE ARE NECESSARY arenas to an understanding of common need and legal DUTY! IT IS A FAIR ASSERTION THAT, A CLASS ACTION SUIT IS REQUIRED!
This Petition for Redress of Grievances, IS RIPE, and the opportunity to confront and correct injustice is at hand, NOT within the context of a personal exercise, BUT a NEED expressed and established as representative of the entire population. WE are all subject to, being human. The LEGAL ISSUES represented as the first and primary cause for Redress (JUSTICE IS A DEBT OWED TO THE PUBLIC CITIZEN, medicine is a MONOPOLY), establishes Jurisdiction WITHIN THE COURT. And is properly supported by the Constitutional decree and demand: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity........"
AND does form a suitable platform capable of including the events and circumstances of many citizens, for the purpose and intent of the words, "the preamble of the United States Constitution": the Nation and its people have consented to, and DID DIE FOR. Those being: 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.
These words describe, how its suppose to be, and why it is important enough to die for, in association with the bill of rights and the declaration of independence.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Adherence is expected within the following words of the court justices:
MARBURY V. MADISON 1803
CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL: "That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected....."
EUCLID V. AMBLER REALITY CO. 272 US 365
JUSTICE SUTHERLAND: ...."while the meaning of constitutional guarantees 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....."
WHITNEY V. CALIFORNIA 274 US 357
....Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties....that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; .....they eschewed silence, coerced by law- the argument of force in its worst form.
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.......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!
(MY WORDS) These things are not political, they are foundation principles of government and Justice, and can only be properly viewed as, INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS!
A REDRESS, MUST TAKE ON A NATIONAL SCALE, THIS IS OUR GOVERNMENT, AND IT SHALL AFFECT ALL OUR LIVES! As such the court is expected to provide ADEQUATE COUNCIL, for the public interest. EVEN SO, my absolute right to be involved, IS CLEAR!
A SEARCH FOR ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OUR COMMON security, the RIGHT OF PEACE, and RESPECT FOR LIBERTY all declare a need exists to search among the realities of this day; and call for evidence through permanent common interest: AND issue warrants to see what remains of the freedoms, the HONOR, and the JUSTICE for which men/women have died.
We are people, crowded into a world that has.become defined by the extremes of mankind. There IS an assortment of ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT, any one of which would start an avalanche of, "cause and effect relationships", that create DEATH (a loss that cannot be measured until its too late).
This application of fundamental RIGHTS, understood as, a redress of grievances, applies the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom of the entire nation, and then the world, to OUR SURVIVAL, as a planet, an environment, and a species!
The common complaint: "I don't want to be involved;" BORDERS ON TREASON, because the problems that exist, threaten every LIFE. History reveals whatever man/woman has access to, WILL eventually be used, IRREGARDLESS of the known consequences.
The common cry, "what's in it for me", would be better served by, "what will happen, IF"! Reality says the future IS determined by the past. The past is full of "it can't happen here, NOT to me, NOT to us, ETC." The past is also full of promises, "we won't let it happen, we will control, it won't cost much, ETC"!
These words, this legal description is evidence of DUTY. I, as a person, confronted directly, sufficiently trained, and capable of understanding this must be corrected, "am exactly like you" NOT interested in being a public figure. With regard to these words, the case enclosed, the record reviewed, I was drafted. It is NOT my desire to be involved, RATHER it is a duty of those who want and believe in freedom, liberty, and a peaceful society; arrogance changes to tyranny, and then to oppression! It is lack of JUSTICE which shall change the battle from words to blood; look to the past, when arrogance ruled, the nation dissolved.
YOU, as a citizen, WILL decide the importance of your own opinion (the result of the case, as a description of redress of grievances). REDRESS MEANS, YOU WILL CHOOSE, by your own actions, the rules/LAW YOU live by, and the actual threat which exists, AND the method of intervention. There is no intent to say, "the world, isn't as safe today as it was 10 years ago", RATHER these descriptions are about the future, NEAR AND WITHIN OUR LIFETIME. Does anything fix itself, or will failure occur, before repairs are made? HOW EXPENSIVE THEN!
This said, YOU SHALL also inherit or deal with the problems that exist, either with your consent OR without it! The Choice is YOURS, irregardless of any courtroom decision,
THE CONSTITUTION AND REALITY SAY: This shall be so!
Truth is NOT a relationship of "I WANT", truth is without emotion or desire or choice, in human terms, a defined reality. Truth in absolute terms, IS THE TOOL OF LIFE AND LOVE, and DOES identify CREATION as an ETERNITY, TRUTH NEVER CHANGES (ENERGY, never dies, But it can be changed).
YOU, must then consider what is true in YOU: Do you accept RESPONSIBILITY? Truth will establish the opportunity to select, search, and define through a Redress (to make right, to remove the cause). Those in power will move aside, ONLY, IF the VAST majority insist.
Democracy exists as "COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT" OR, it will fail!
The "PEOPLE PROBLEMS" of this day, CAN BE FIXED. TOMORROW, WILL be realized Either: as peace, security, and happiness, OR the problems of today will be completely forgotten, REPLACED WITH EXTREMES!
WE ARE 6 BILLION PEOPLE, and there will be order or chaos, the line between shall be erased! These words are meant, NOT for fear, BUT to develop the relationship of past and present, to the future, and to discuss the RISK that this may be so, and to assess the possibilities of repair, against the question of revenge. The answer is found in, how many does it take to start a war, how hard is it to stop!
SUCH THINGS AS
Billions of guns
Population pressures beyond all hope of sustainment
Nuclear bombs, chemical bombs, biological bombs, all under the control of one person, or a soldier capable of insanity. (someone pushes the button).
Biological mutation, under the whim of man/woman.
Poverty, medical abandonment, and NO work, the inevitable result of NO RESOURCES
ETC.
These things and more are the present/future, UNLESS WE CHANGE. The decision literally IS YOURS, the answer literally is ALL OF US, the choice is TAKE CONTROL AS A DEMOCRACY: or wait for the inevitable reality of "I DON'T CARE, I GOT MINE, AND I WON'T SHARE". It won't be long!
WE ARE, ONE AT A TIME, THE FUTURE! The only question left: Will people share and care and be responsible, or not?
The words and questions presented by this material IS NOT about me, or the government, or even the court, OUR REALITY IS DETERMINED BY OURSELVES!
Respect demands, IF words are used then words must also apply proper evaluations.
Justice IS NOT a description, NOT a penalty, NOT a law: JUSTICE is a definition of LIFE AND LIVING, applied to the realities of FREEDOM and the cost of anger. Justice portrays HOPE (a belief that TRUTH, shall never change) to DUTY (a reality of existence) as the cost of HAPPINESS. Mercy believes the conception of PEACE (valued friendship) shall occur in all.
In a man's world "Justice" reveals the exchange of anger, for revenge; Idolatries form the basis of all other attempts to form social behaviors.
It is necessary to understand anger (pride without honor) as different from insanity (the acceptance of "voices" from within) and violence (belief that those "voices" have authority and must be obeyed). An example of voices is heard in the expression, "I, can't hear myself think"! The mind KNOWS everything in it, it doesn't have to listen to itself, this IS different!
Justice forms the barrier, composed of pain, suffering, WANT, and need; when Justice becomes true, Reality changes to: EQUAL SHARE, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL BENEFITS, AND FREEDOM wherever the end result, sustains life and happiness.
In the past life was bought and sold. Social Justice encompasses FREEDOM for all, Reality dictates,: CHOICES, that DO NOT HARM, (physically, or intentionally produce mental trauma: emotions are different) other life forms, are freedoms which MUST be allowed, (an allowance is made for the purpose of food, WHEN CARRIED OUT, AS QUICK AND PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE).
Justice encompasses the question of property, meaning "of the earth". Justice DICTATES, "what belongs to everyone, belongs to NO ONE"! Reality allows the liberty to accept the responsibility of ownership (to take NO MORE, than you need, and leave the rest). IT IS DISCIPLINE (proven responsibility) that determines ownership. The question of RIGHT, belongs to the entire NATION, as well as the WORLD!
Issues include, Justice (social harmony) distinguishes RIGHT from WRONG. The development of wrong, fundamentally REQUIRES CHANGE! Change is DIFFERENT, than punishment. Change conforms, by TEACHING, by restraint, by discipline, and by VALUE (LIFE IS GREATER THAN WANT)!
Those who FAIL by great measure, ISSUE the call, PUNISHMENT! These are ONLY, "THE VIOLENT, without cause"; those who themselves become the description of DESTRUCTION. These are entitled to the experience of "NO MERCY", but not by a mans' hand, RATHER through the natural process of nature, being cast out of society to live at the extremes of temperature and climate, FOR A SHORT TIME (food & water for a week).3TP3T It is here that they (a few), will learn, and eternity shall be LESS HARSH!
ETERNITY REMEMBERS, DO NOT take this matter, as a right. Men/women are NOT defined by other men/women, MORE IS AT RISK, than mere physical death, FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED!
HAPPINESS REQUIRES JUSTICE, JUSTICE PRODUCES EQUALITY, EQUALITY PRODUCES PEACE, WHAT DO YOU WANT?