UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(Not used, applied to provide additional prospective)

THE COMMON PUBLIC CITIZEN

as represented by, OSTERBUR, JAMES FRANK

2191 cr 2500E

St. Joseph, IL 61873

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY

AS REPRESENTED BY COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER

1400 W PARK

URBANA, IL 61801

THE U.S. APPEALLATE COURT JUSTICES

U.S.C.A. OF THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

CHICAGO, IL 60604

as listed below

RICHARD A. POSNER

JOHN L. COFFEY

DANIEL A. MANION

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

FILED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

FILED UNDER ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 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 throughthe 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 preamble to the Constitution, and its 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.

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.

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 rules of the court demand the word PRAYER be used, its meaning to speak to god CLEARLY NOT OF THE PEOPLE).

The Federal 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.

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 victom 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 arguement 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, 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 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.

These words DO 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 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). 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 sovernign Right, to protect yourself, your family, or your property. These things transform legal rights to the Reality of, "will they (the judiciary) grant mercy, or let the " wolves" devour, in a game (if you don't have every punctuation mark, every specilized word or phrase, every "grain of sand" neatly in place, you the litigant may simply be discarded) only a few greedy people are allowed to play." (Only lawyers). This is far closer to reality, than the words the court is suppose to adhere to.

THE SIMPLE AND PLAIN:

From the Illinois Preamble to the Constitution, Supreme law, Constitution, section 1, subsecion 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.

The initiating action case 92s 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 by definition is a criminal charge and the Right of the defendant is completely clear.

The relief sought: Suitable redress of grievances as allowed by the first amendment. That solution being as identified herein, through public vote.

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 from the constitution of the state of Ill, and a Fundamental attack upon the rights of those dependant upon a FAIR JUDICIARY. These then are the actions of the state of Ill appellate judges.

The relief sought: a suitable Redress of Grievances as ordered by the first amendment and outlined as issues represented herein.

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 relief sought: Adequate inquiry and jurisdiction and authority, and as outlined in the issues represented herein.

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, is devoid of consequence to the court, 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 the 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 Judidiary 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: "Use these WORDS, to conform government to the people, NOT people to the government!

Federal court refers to these issues as FRIVOLOUS.

The relief sought: A redress of grievances, according to the first amendment, and suitable means to be heard as a class action legal forum and the means to a constructive constitutional by the people, of the people, for the people, end.

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 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, through the first amendment right TO, A redress of grievances!

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 extortion by reason of NO possibility to challange, even through the court system. This result forms the basic allegiance between medicine and government, aganist the inalienable rights of citizenship, 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, yet the court says, "there is no law: even though any other business dealing demands a fair appraisel 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"?

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 point of contention. The medical society 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, 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, the medical establishment impells their own brand of Religious Fervor upon! IS THIS NOT THE MEANING OF TRYANNY? WHAT THEN IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT, and to who 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 pratice christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other"; a FAIR AND ACCURATE STATEMENT, respecting the freedom to choose, in this society, OR NOT?

IF it is, then the medical society has not only exceeded its authority, but entered into the grounds of slander, libelous, defamatory statements and more.

The relief sought: Removal of blatant tryanny, 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.

The medical society having defined my existence as dependant upon them, then established my identity in their records, as less than capable of being human; within their own idolitries. Medical files are not secret, access is granted in many ways.

The relief 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, through unconstitutional law Ill code of civil procedure 2-622, for example, the lack of an hourly rate, for services rendered, and no allowance for the outcome of a procedure or service or product. IN SIMPLE TERMS ESTABLISH FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT!

BRIEF

THE QUESTION; Is this Equal protection under the law?

The legal battle begins: A short time after my experience with the hospital, I know a heart attack occurred, being of much greater pain and intensity, yet the treatment I received caused me to choose death or disability, as preferrable 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 dosen't understand the social securty 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 (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 Obligatiion, 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? The court replies, DISMISSED!

The legal issues which have arisen each indicate an utter failure, with regard to Constitutional doctrine and Equal Rights, as well as, a usurption 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"!

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 ARGUEMENT

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,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 seventh question: Do Judges, do rules of procedure, or does constitutional adherence produce Social peace, freedom, liberty, and happiness?

The arguement 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 {new method}, 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 situation exists and 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 is government! That is the purpose of a redress, that is the method choosen 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, the peoples' authority, the Duty to defend the foundations of Freedom, Liberty, and Justice, and the honorable intent of Constitutional law (to firmly defend the 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 supercede 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.

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 formatiion and comprehension of choice, describe freedom. It is Honor that recognizes and defends JUSTICE. We are a Society at peace, ONLY when liberty, the price DUTY requires, is freely paid, because LIFE responds to need, to mercy, and to injustice. 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"!

Independance 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! It is my RIGHT, just as our possession, our right IS: A VOTE OF CONSEQUENCE! RESPECT NOT FATIGUE! THE CONSTITUTION IS: A CONTRACT, WHICH REQUIRES ITS CITIZENS TO DIE FOR THE WORDS, BUT ONLY IF 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 first amendment, 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 Gurantee; A peaceful Redress of Grievances, according to the first amendment.

Arguement 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 judicary 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."

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 constitutional literacy and the court system, and the judiciary!

Primary objective: Judicial guarantees and acceptance of, "If you are a judge, 3 major Ethical failures and your OUT/ NO PENSION". 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, 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 jurys final determination as an intregal duty, and the PROBABILITY OF ERROR or 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!

1e. An appeals process would be, much better served IF a television presentation were broadcast, of agreed upon content, to the public. Constitutional questions, imprisonment, deserve as much involvement as possible. Legal question: The most effective guard against oppression, by law or by judge, IS Public involvement?

1f. It is 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, let the inmate work at jobs of value that might not be ecomonical otherwise, such as salvaging old buildings, repairing old applianes, furniture, recycling and reforestation, etc.

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 send a dangerous person away, elsewhere. This Vote of the inmates themselves Will lengthen or shorten EVERY INMATES' SENTENCE, dependant upon whether the people they let out do well, or hurt someone else. 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?

1g. EQUAL PENALITIES, 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 victom, personal relief for the family is life insurance (mandatory with more than 1 dependant, a cost associated with social security).

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 calculatable cost. The public must vote on and accept those punishments and their well-defined limitations before they become effective.

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, and when the judicial officers are of good character! In one form or another the bill, is sent to the taxpayer for all courtroom proceedings. It is Fair to establish limits. Legal question: Does not amendment 9, "The enumeration in theconstitution 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 Idolitry (excessive greed), is the foundation upon which the constitution depends.

1h. 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? 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 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, and privileges of that hostage? Ethical question: would not a maximum percentage of income and property, as payment, per family; the percentage based upon the medical problem be, 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. 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, eatablish 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 ask"! Failure to do so, can cripple or kill in many cases! Therefore an HONEST Evaluation ofthe 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": Breaking up the MONOPOLY that medicine has achieved over the patient, as described within these series of cases, and others. Legal question: True or False; The redress of grievances, amendment 1, allows the orderly resolution of abuses, usurptions 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, buildings, provided the loans, produced the tools, supplied the needs, cleaned the areas, 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 left to deal with the poverty of a bad solution. NO amount of Money, can fix/replace a broken body! 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 as 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 (subject to every aspect of governmental intervention), the peoples' choice!

The Bill of Rights is to be considered, Democracys' 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. 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, for usage, per patient. It is up to the public to select, 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"

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, "completes the work called desolation", 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, of a type and kind, BEYOND ALL DESCRIPTION!

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. 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 specimans availiable 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 HARSCH REALITIES, BUT contrary to the popular LIE, (man/woman was mutated into existence). Disease keeps mutation from destroying man/woman!