UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
RE; OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT: William K. Suter
The papers sent to the supreme court, SIMPLY AND CLEARLY , "DECLARING A DIRECT APPEAL, UNDER OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION", in NO WAY suggest a writ of certiorari!
" The papers are not a petition for review.
This legal public action IS A DEMAND, to investigate corrupt practice and policy, as has been found within the judicial system and which has contaminated the medical MONOPOLY over the public (a true matter of commerce).
The trials/appeals listed DO NOT seek review of specific confrontation, aside from necessary examination to ascertain these , as "the evidence which convicts"!
The appeal is DISTINCTLY DEFENDED, page 6, "This appeal legitimately defined within the third article of the United States Constitution."
This appeal is DISTINCTLY DEFINED, page 8-9, "Establish,
A legal Redress of Grievances, according to the first Amendment
Proper judicial regard for Inalienable Rights......WITH PENALTIES
THE COMMERCE, MONOPOLY, AND DISCRIMINATION charges, as identified regarding the medical industry.
Each of the defendants listed has earned the RIGHT.
The United States of America IS the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and its PEOPLE.
The integrity of the Officials hired to do the work IS subject to a legal determination, when the sovereignty and righteousness of the United States of America is being corrupted.
The State of Illinois IS the supervisor of its courts, BEING RESPONSIBLE, for their actions, and its consequences.
Covenant Medical Center, Urbana IL, initiated and identified the problem WAS given every opportunity to reconsider and refused. It is only justice, that they be allowed, to represent the medical industry, as they are fully acquainted with every detail.
The Judges of the U.S.C.A. as listed, were given the IMPORTANT JOB, and were sworn to uphold, the integrity of the court as DEFINED by the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights and Authority of its PEOPLE.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RE; UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
OSTERBUR
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
et al
DEFENDANTS
CLERK OF THE COURT, Thomas F. Strubbe
The documents returned RE; 94-1943 ARE indeed a DIRECT APPEAL to the U.S. Supreme Court, NOT a writ of Certiorari.
The Judges whose names appear upon each packet ARE DEFENDANT, WITHIN that legal action, and these returned packets are their notice (look at the list on the appeal).
Their names appear because they are the final defense within a legitimate and REASONABLE appeal and they DID FAIL completely, to do their job.
This direct appeal then directs the U. S. Government to examine the practices and polices and adhere to the third article of the U. S. Constitution, section 1 "The judges of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during GOOD BEHAVIOR......".
Disciplinary action or dismissal is therefore the call, page 7, "show me, the frivolous nature of these appeals and identify, the courts discretion, as LEGAL procedure, ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION".
I, will again issue the statement: "Fraud is a criminal term, without notice or opportunity to defend, I was forced to turn over private property." "Medical extortion, exists when a trauma patient IS NOT EQUAL, to a Corporate entity, within the Judicial system.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
TO: Clerk of the Court, William K. Suter
RE: OSTERBUR V. UNITED STATES et. al. DEFENDANTS
REFERENCE TO LETTER OCT 13, 1994
This date 10/27/94
The Definition of Direct Appeal from section 1253, title 28 "any party may appeal to the supreme court......." The appeal in question DISTINCTLY falls within the Anti-Trust laws of title 15 commerce and Trade
The Constitutionality of a state law, which directly caused me injury, and is a violation of legal rights, and COULD do so again, and DOES injure any other trauma patient, in the same manner.
The Reality of denial of due process and equal protection : as was illegally withheld from me throughout these court actions.
The issue of Mandamus to the inferior court OR acceptance of jurisdiction by the supreme court IS DUE. The decision by the Appellate Court to fundamentally DENY BY BLATANT PREJUDICE, read the appeal, ESTABLISHES COLOR OF LAW and issues their (Judges) acceptance and inclusion within this suit.
From title 28 section 2101 supreme court (b) appealed from a decision of a "federal appellate court", in any civil action, suit or proceeding.
The appellate court could not be more clear in its decision , and is final, see appeal page 3.
The authorization of LAW is Constitutional in origin and fact, as related to this appeal, THE EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE.
READ THE APPEAL
UNDERSTAND; the dictionary meaning of Constitution QUOTE: ".... A charter of the government deriving its whole authority from the governed. the written instrument agreed upon by the people of the union (e.g. Constitution) or of a particular state, as the absolute RULE OF ACTION and decision for all departments (i.e. branches) and officers of the government in respect to all points covered by it, which must control...."
This legal public action DEMANDS the first amendment right: ".....for a redress of grievances...." to PROTECT THIS DEMOCRACY FROM CORRUPTION THROUGH DEMOCRATIC LEGAL ACTIONS.
THE RIGHT, THE DUTY AND THE AUTHORITY TO FIGHT CORRUPTION, IS Due Process And Equal Protection and therefrom produces Jurisdiction of the people over MISUSE OF POWER , AND OBLIGATES THE COURT, to establish and protect this fundamental first amendment RIGHT AND LAW.
The LAW OF THE LAND DEMANDS a hearing and establishes my standing to bring suit ARTICULATED AS: The declaration of independence"........That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, to alter or to abolish it......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......"
CORRUPTION, MUST BE FOUGHT, Corruption exists within the court, the people MUST...........SECURE, the Blessings of LIBERTY, to ourselves and our posterity........"
ACCEPT THIS: The courtroom is NOT a Monarchy. The Judge is NOT a ruler. The COURT IS where PEOPLE ESTABLISH RIGHT.
THE DEFINITION OF OBLIGATORY JURISDICTION; is identified within Judicial canon 3 : Constitutional OBLIGATIONS Judicial Canon 22: Review and Judicial Canon 34: A summary of Judicial Obligation.
These Canons fall DISTINCTLY within a proper understanding of Judicial Canon 2: The public interest "Courts exist to promote JUSTICE, and thus serve the public interest...........for the litigants."
I HAVE NOW written to you, specifically, William K. Suter twice, regarding your deliberate and willful misrepresentation of the facts submitted within this DIRECT APPEAL. Your intentional disregard for the Constitutional Right and Relief, which the LAW allows to each citizen, presents a barrier, fundamentally defined as " Obstruction of Justice". You are hereby instructed to successfully administer the duties of the Clerk. ACCEPT THE APPEAL, as written, OR identify problems which arise in connection with a direct Constitutional Appeal` to the supreme court , arising under the Obligation of DUTY, to SUPPORT, OBSERVE, AND APPLY, the fundamental limitations and guarantees of the Constitution of the United States.
Be it noted neither a copy of the Rules or sample petition has been sent to me either time and failure to correct your attitude or sloppiness is inexcusable.
The statement is further made and clarified YOU are NOT the judge, your JOB IS to fulfill the purpose of the LAW, to grant EACH CITIZEN, the OPPORTUNITY, to be heard in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time.
Rule 13, requiring a full financial declaration was met and enclosed with my initial filing and DOES contain the seal of your office. Suggestions that this Rule, the ONLY rule you describe, was not followed, is PURE CONJECTURE.
DO, establish MY RIGHT, or efforts will be made seeking REVIEW of your work, and your JOB.
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, title 28 section 2072 (b) "such rules shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right....."