CASE # 05-2038                                                                    DATED 3/25/05

1.      IT IS NOW 7 DAYS past the time this personal letter was sent to Carle Foundation hospital and Carle Clinic incorporated; one entity pretending, one using the public. The letter found herein explains greed will not be allowed/ return a letter that says this is not your intent, or nothing that occurs hereafter will be my fault/ it is yours. They have not replied/ therefore they choose greed.

2.      TO CARLE CLINIC AND CARLE HOSPITAL

3.      THE BOARD

4.      YOUR LAWYERS INFORM ME, that you are dissatisfied with the ruling and wish to bring these matters back to court in full force/ as there are many true issues to contest.

5.      IT IS NOW TIME TO ASSERT WHERE YOU STAND, as the defendants in this matter/ and if this is your wish, and your conviction and your intent to bring these matters back.

6.      I WARN YOU NOW, I will not be so polite this time.

7.      Either restrain and rebuke your lawyers, or it will not be a legal fight, this time it will be a legal WAR.

8.      IF THE COURT AWARDS THEM ANYTHING, AND YOUR RESPONSE IN NOT IMMEDIATE AND WITH COURTESY TO ME. THEN IT IS BY YOUR WILL, AND THERE WILL BE A LEGAL RESPONSE.

9.      CHOOSE.

10.  Date of receipt of the letter from your lawyers is march 15, 2005.

11.  If this is not your doing, then I do expect a reprisal against your lawyers, at least 3 times the amount they choose to charge me in your name. A return letter to me, is in your interest/ if this is not your fault.

 

12.  THE RETURN TO COURT:



13.  Legal war is literally, either you are a friend or an enemy, and if you choose enemy then I will not be concerned as to what happens to you. Some will accuse me of creating this problem and they are only defending themselves; BUT they are wrong. All matters involved in this trial 05-2038 are significant in terms of society/ and literally have been expanded by the US attorney to include life and death issues of a nation and a world. These are not personal issues/ NONE of them. Therefore they do not carry personal debts. Carle was free, unharmed and without concern because they knew as well as I, the court is a failure to society, and collusion with greed and power would dismiss this case. Therefore I came only for evidence, to be used in a national debate/ without personal business or distinct persons involved. To this moment of greed Carle remained a non-participant/ stating only in this trial, a desire to fight, but offering nothing but fear. NOW hiding behind the disgrace of the court, they feel safe/ and using the judge as their personal pimp, they do come whoring for money. This is their contribution to society and the preservation of life on earth: the power of greed, and the failure and bigotry of lusting for power.

14.  Since there are enough enemies in this world/ I do offer at any time, the work is for society and for life, and cannot be interpreted otherwise/ the war is over. As to the others involved, Carle demands your participation as well.

15.  It has come about that those accused of being greedy, arrogant, & blindly selfish HAVE indeed responded by proving this to be true, beyond any doubt. Through the actions of their lawyers and with Carle's consent, Carle has now contributed their actions to the reality of trial. They have chosen to participate and demanded to be known. In the course of trial 05-2038 Carle's entire response is limited to a waiver of service (they will appear, and so they have). This up to the demand for money, is the entire summary "of their work".

16.  As expected the judge FAILS/ proving beyond doubt, as provided in the documents filed, to participate in a courtroom in America, it is fundamentally necessary to immediately present argument, because a pro se litigant is little more than sewer gas to the judge. Employed as a representative of the people, whose job it is to protect society by protecting the individuals in society/ the reality is bought and paid for, the judge adheres to the money/ and worships the power of blatant greed proving, there is NO MATTER in existence that will remove the prejudice of money from the court. Therefore all issues of money must be reserved to the people to decide, and all realities of court involving money MUST be viewed in its entirety by the public through public broadcast and the like. The only method past the courtroom to the public is the removal of a judge.

17.  To establish the fundamental boundaries of trial, all defendants are told plainly; let the judge decide before you do any work, that their may be no cause for legal compensation/ when the court fails. They comply because they "have NO defense"/ if they had a defense, they would have used it; all they prove is greed. This trial is national in scope, it is fundamentally WE THE PEOPLE in Composition & circumstance. It has merit because it is critical to the survival of the nation, and that statement is supported with evidence of critical economic collapse and the assertions of civil war, due to the larceny against those who became targets of that greed. This trial IS HONORED BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT of the Constitution, as a redress of grievances: the last resort, when all other methods of survival have failed: and you have truly failed as a nation and a people/ because you fear the end of the world; therefore you have created the participants to kill you, yourselves: how stupid you are. This court being federal in jurisdiction CANNOT REFUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, without treason to the people; this is not only your job, because the degree of danger is evident throughout this trial 05-2038 the judge deserts his post and position to hide in lies and innuendo, fully knowing he commits fraud: saying he doesn't understand this is more than a trial about $400.00 dollars. Even a 5 grader would know it is more than about $400.00 therefore he lies. There are no excuses allowed to the court/ the judge knows, the 1st amendment testifies and demands of the court its allegiance and the court fails. Due process is demanded by me, stating not only is this a national problem and national consequence in all aspects of the original filing, it affects my life, and has affected my life and I do deserve the relationship with society that preserves my own dignity. The court says, the matters outlined as constitutional guarantees to the people are merely "frivolous" and deserve nothing. To establish my demand for personal constitutional guarantees, the reality of NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY and the consequences therein is used, in conjunction with a federal reserve document [the United States government accounting/ which cannot be refuted by this judge] as supplemental justification, that time is running out, and we as a nation must act/ therefore the courtroom according to the first amendment must be established. The judge does not dispute the evidence, NO defendant has questioned it/ therefore it stands as correct and without argument, accepted as true/ at this time. Instead the judge excuses himself from the required response, as provided within federal rules of civil procedure 60 for the plaintiff who asks: Is the motion of the US attorney a "mistake/ is it new evidence/ is it a misrepresentation of a participant/ is this motion a fraud/ does this motion have no authority/ or is there ANY reason, that a response is not appropriate by the plaintiff: what is the excuse from the judge as to why should his response [to mute the us attorney] come only after the plaintiff reveals his. The answer is not a mistake/ the answer is fraud: as an employee sworn to uphold the constitution and the law/ the judge subverts control of the law, and asserts control by hostile possession of the law. And for what purpose? The answer is he stands against the law, and submits the false pretense of a matter involving $400.00, instead of national rights. He is a traitor, working for the enemy/ not for the law. His job is simply to bring justice to society and to the people individually; his reality takes the private property of constitutional guarantees and redistributes them to these greedy entities, because without law, society fails. Therefore the judges order is rebuked for BIAS AND DEFICIENCY AND FRAUD, and it is asserted that these are criminal acts against the nation and against me.

18.  With malice and disrespect, the judge attacks in his order, opening with lies about a "26 page complaint of single spaced text"/ he offers there is no short and plain statement of the claims asserted; even though the first page of this filing is a short and plain brief depicting federal involvement is required by the court. The judge suggests "similar to another filed by osterbur in 9/7/04 case 04-2196" and decrees "whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action". The review of 04-2196 comes later. The matter of 05-2038 as held in its brief is distinctly a matter for the federal court system/ it is without doubt that the subject matter is understood by the judge. It is upheld under the courts own supervisory role and orders to every judge: "to help the pro se litigant, and provide as much leniency as possible" [or something to that effect]. And it demands that no one shall dispute the subject matter of this trial, by presenting argument immediately and without doubt. The judge discards all argument/ declares no brief exists/ fundamentally discounts every social and national and personal complaint and suggests "that he cannot proceed because ancillary jurisdiction is not a proper one". He states, "the court must have original jurisdiction over at least one of the plaintiffs claims before it can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over other claims forming part of the same case or controversy. 28 USC 1367". Therefore he lies and stipulates that the 1st amendment doesn't actually exist/ he cannot accept it terms therefore he will blatantly and with contempt abandon a redress of grievances by the first amendment as his right to declare "the amendment is a frivolous excuse, that bears no cause, and no right to be heard in a courtroom of law. The law, irregardless of what it says/ is what he interprets it to say. This is theft, of the most basic form of democracy: the right to be equal under law. This judge makes himself superior to the 1st amendment, therefore superior to the law/ and a consequent thief. Let him, or the court for him, submit the truth and confront my right to proceed under the 1st amendment/ or let the court remove all barriers to this action. If not the court is in contempt/ and each member who refuses or could have acted DOES deserve to be jailed, for that contempt.

19.  This judge argues "as with his last complaint osterbur does not bring his claim pursuant 28 USC 1331 as (claims originating under the constitution...). The judge lies fully aware and knowing that a pro se litigant is not under the very same restrictions as a "member of the bar"/ therefore he corrupts the action, prepared to submit that because the title 28 USC 1331 does not appear in the brief or the arguments of the original filing/ NO opportunity for the court to "see the law" exists. The clear intent is theft, the judge steals my right and the rights of all citizens to a fair hearing for justice/ and rules for fraud: the intent to appear as judicial, when in fact the corruption is so blatant even a "citizen of the United States of America" can see it. This judge claims this case 05-2038 is not a matter in controversy exceeding $75,000.00 (the current expectation provided by amendment 7 of the constitution, that GUARANTEES me my day in court, by jury trial). This is without support, and guarantees this judge is prejudiced against not only me/ but as these documents stand for: the preservation of the nation, and the honor of society: this is treachery, and amounts to treason: as I am sold for financial slaughter, to greedy men and women/ and the nation to grief and desperation, because these matters are important to us all. HOW could this be considered otherwise, particularly considering the two separate trials judge baker ruled upon, in the past; ridicule cannot be trusted.

20.  The judge issues conclusory statements to prescribe tyranny [does he own my mind/ these are not my words or my work] and rearrange my filings to suit his ends. This is deceit and the declarations of perjury [does he not stand in a courtroom and proclaim lies]? He does indeed. The judge abandons his duty, and says "its an Illinois problem" get out of court. He lies, fully knowing this is not about "little things" and discards the reality of the american medical society as a defendant/ and is heavily installed within the arguments given. He denies the consequence of price fixing, throws out consumer protection, pukes upon the charge of monopoly, and all the rest; arguing this is "too little" for him as a judge of the federal court to be involved in. He is therefore "playing arsonist" and in his diminished capacity relies upon a specific intent separate the filing into its most easily evicted sentences/ he pretends all the rest is irrelevant, therefore he has constructed through the insanity of deserting his position, that he has a right. There is NO IMMUNITY for a judge in these matters, a criminal act is a criminal act, and this member of society is not more than any other member of "the policing action"/ his immunity is the same as any other policing officer, not more. The intent of the law is to protect society/ NOT a bastard judge: PROVE ME WRONG. Neither is any of this ignorance of his position or the law/ does he not quote obscure and irrelevant details in law to support his own positions. I guarantee you, that the demand for justice is not defended by words, but by truth and actions to defend that truth. All this court has produced are words of conflict, producing nothing of merit, nothing of value, whose intent is strictly and with defiance to the law, the larceny of stealing a constitutional right. He should be disbarred/ or thrown from the bench/ for he is not "the owner of the court/ he is the employee, and has no rights to intervene in justice, and be in contempt of society. Who has a greater right, the one who asks for justice or the one who is sworn to uphold justice? Who has a greater obligation to the law, the one who needs justice, or the one who sells justice for "the pennies of rules and innuendo without merit/ the one who lies to appease his laziness and sloth".

21.  Baker asserts in effect, limited jurisdiction as his reason & right to dismiss. Baker asserts, OUR federal courtroom wherein he resides as an employee , lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter even though he is fully aware of constitutional guarantees/ he states "frivolous". Therefore let the record reveal what he calls frivolous:

22.  the first amendment guarantees, "a redress of grievances" THIS IS NOT a joke or a misprint or a failure to understand/ this is a reality that exists for use by the individuals of society/ a primary foundation of this democracy, as important as the rest of that very same amendment. Let the record show, at no time does this judge claim any portion or part of the filings are incorrect or inappropriate to the cause of justice; as is usual, "being only an American Citizen/ I have no rights in this courtroom of this government: PAY THE MONEY, and let the extortion begin by surrendering my right, my constitutional guarantees to a lawyer to speak for me: I REFUSE, for I am adequate to defend myself. Even so, I plainly request of this judge to provide "lawyers for the public aspects of this trial/ and do state, I am not a lawyer and cannot defend the others". As with all other aspects of merit to this case 05-2038 the judge allows prejudice to overrule justice. The original filings alone are sufficient to demand jurisdiction is fully defined and correct within this courtroom. The subject matter or anti-trust issues, the deficit and its issues of greed and the corruption of power, or now under color of law the judge who deprives me of civil rights by using prejudice to control my appearance in a courtroom of law, and breach of warranty [that by the constitution I may have my day in court] is simply denied by conjecture and not accepted in the social context with which it is written. Prove this trial is simply about me. Baker provides NO DIRECT ASSERTION OF AUTHORITY against any portion or part of the pleadings themselves/ preferring to attack the litigant, because I am an easy target, and the pleadings are not. Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" which means: until you have proven the pleadings are wrong by content and not innuendo and frivolous rules/ THEY STAND COMPLETE and without contest in this courtroom of law, the law cannot touch them until it proves they are wrong. Again you are not as a judge or officer of the court/ capable of judging me, only the law can do that/ and only those laws that obey the constitution are allowed power over the citizen in this democracy. The rest are a compromise/ and my citizenship is not to be compromised: you have no right.

23.  In the original filings section starting with paragraph 1 seeks to establish medical malpractice by their methods of billing/ which then result in the concepts of fraud & conspiracy. The result is an extortion in reality due to the consequences of a medical emergency, and the subsequent billing without critical and real opportunity to contest. The reality of greed and tyranny is transferred to "these private enterprises" due to the massive power established, for the benefit of the medical enterprises which has then become a tremendous financial burden to all who then enter their doors/ because under current law; clearly we have no rights, and no opportunity to contest, even when the evidence is clear and certain: they hold all the power. That means in the reality of this society, any medical trauma becomes nothing less than an unreasonable search and seizure of the financial and personal securities of that individual in medical trauma/ and the result of this blatant enslavement by financial means/ amendment 4 is examined within its intent: "That the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue....". The question for constitutional construction is then, does this not apply to unwarranted power over an individual/ and should there not be a platform in equality for both sides to adequately resolve any financial issue as may present itself. This is of national concern.

24.  In the original filings section starting with paragraph 7 the charge is "the court is a place of ill-repute, a place of deception, bias, and criminal acts against the people/ which fills only the pockets of lawyers and the greed of medicine. It continues with the charge of collusion in these things and is a disgrace, for its role over the people , and the reality of very little justice/ due to language and innuendo that the people afflicted with trial cannot understand: unlike the courts saying "ignorance of the law is not excuse/ ignorance of the charge against you is not tolerated either: check your miranda rights & rulings and see. The court and its officers are charged with making sure the defendant or plaintiff understands in this matter, it is not up to the lawyer/ it is incumbent upon the court: are we less than criminals/ does not the loss of a lifetime worth of work, the end of financial stability, or retirement or any other present true consequences? Greed is a disease that has spread throughout all of medicine/ a reality that has cost very many people their lives, their teeth, their family, their property, and has made them slaves [because they could not afford to go/ these thieves would steal everything]. So life or limb is held in the extortion of sign your financial future away, or go ahead and die. Some will argue, too poor, you won't pay. But reality says "you got anything/ going to get anything/ can you steal anything; sell your body whatever" they will come to take it away, and demand more. The essence of this complaint is not "free medicine"/ rather it is a relationship within the 5th amendment that holds "no person shall be.....twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ....nor be deprived of life liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." There are know incidents wherein the medical industry preys upon people without insurance. As is in clear evidence in this trial 05-2038 the right to trial is a joke, an outrage, and more simply a "cease and desist order" from all sides involved in the commission of a crime: to hold the citizen expecting justice/ to the anvil wherein a lawyer may without cause "smash his or her head in while stripping them of all property, dignity, or whatever the judge is coerced to allow. Where is your honor/ you as a court produce only shame on America, for your lack of justice, you are a disgrace. Due process is NOT held in rules of the court/ due process is an adequate & honorable hearing, for the distinct purpose of JUSTICE and no alteration of facts/ such as these for the robbery of my right to justice and a fair hearing is allowed by any constitutional mandate or law: the court is a FRAUD, and the reality is a treason.

25.  The section starting with 15 describes the "bundling practices" of Carle and its subsidiaries, and asserts consumer protection is necessary and specifically asks of the court to examine the reality of surgery in particular, and all medicine as a reality as the literal invasion of that person. Therefore at a minimum we DESERVE the information necessary to expect a probable cause or outcome, through knowledge/ rather than excuses. The ridicule of the medical industry as it is allowed to "search and seize" our bodies/ and yet we have NO access to even basic information of these people is a DISGRACE. Again the 4th amendment guarantees a right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures...." the invasion of your own personal body cannot be of greater concern than anything else the 4th amendment applies to. It is an UNREASONABLE search and seizure, that we are restrained from information, and held in contempt by the court as it refuses the basic necessities of dignity and right. The 4th amendment declares "the right to be secure shall not be violated....and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized". While the court will argue, this is an interpretation/ I tell you true, that as these things apply particularly to medical traumas, the intent of protection of the people is inherent in all matters of the constitution and we are just as valuable as those charged with criminal intent.

26.  Section 21 demands court reform, to establish a courtroom for the people/ NOT A COURTROOM for the judge, the lawyer, the police, or the money that corrupts the process. A place wherein a citizen shall find JUSTICE, and not the arrogant bleeding of pride, and the pitiful portrayal of power and greed; is it not power that demands control, instead of justice/ is it not greed that is more concerned with "keeping the status quo" instead of preparing and preserving society and the nation/ is it not pride that thinks only of revenge in the form of an attack for money: IT IS without doubt. You should all be ashamed.

27.  Section 26; assembles the monopoly game, wherein price fixing is always in evidence/ there is no other reason for the monopoly game/ therefore it is inherent and obvious. Bankruptcy for the nation, the result of decades of greed in collusion with the politics and court, have destroyed the life's work of at least 50 million people: are you proud? Amendment 7 demands all cases beyond a specific minimum limit, SHALL BE HEARD IN COURT, BY JURY TRIAL/ the constitution gives NO EXCEPTION. Therefore you have no right to take away this trial/ the constitution itself; "Your boss and mine as a citizen" have made that perfectly clear/ and your portrayal in defiance of this mandate of your position as judge clearly charges you with FELONY ASSAULT. This is a criminal act, and there is no ignorance of the law. This is primary to your oath, and you have no excuse/ no exceptions.

28.  Section 31 WE THE PEOPLE IS our only alternative to bankruptcy and the civil war it will produce. This is the reason the 1st amendment provides "redress of grievances" for the people/ and the constitution further verifies this demand by the words of amendment 9 and 10. Simply, it is not the constitution itself that verifies the right to trial, but the cause/ and this cause is the life or death of the nation itself. It is not enough that you may say, prove "the nation will die"/ for that is done beyond conceivable evidence only when the nation is in fact dead. Therefore prove the evidence and pleadings are not adequate to achieve a level of concern worthy of investigation/ and then questions will be answered. Until you prove otherwise, the sanctity of this demand within the 1st amendment rights of a citizen of WE THE PEOPLE shall stand.

29.  Section 35 exists as the charge of larceny, corruption, and the failure of the medical industry to adequately police itself/ that charges the USA with the demand for public utility status for the entire medical industry in all its aspects. WE THE PEOPLE Allows in no uncertain terms, control by the people, NOT simply a vote for someone to vote for me/ BUT MY PERSONAL VOTE ON THE ISSUES THEMSELVES, as we desire it to be.

30.  Section 41 is the assertion of a public discussion and an honorable contract wherein equality and truth rules all. Therefore national problems and national reason exist for a class action suit

31.  Section 46 is simply duty demands of every citizen the consequence of life/ therefore these things are not political, instead they are life, death, and the relationship we all share with each other. Politics are merely the excuses & compromise of a society to lazy to defend itself.

32.  Section 50 completes the fundamental disrespect that contempt and fraud by the courtrooms of america have traded for and received due to the disrespect , and disgrace of pitiful failures throwing justice, equality, and a guaranteed right, simply to the dogs and rats that have come to infiltrate and live in the courtroom of america. DO NOT CONCEIVE of any ideas of "Rabble rousing"/ we as a nation are in very serious trouble, that will very soon seek to destroy the nation and even the world [such is the truth, that greed and power have left us with]. If you fail to work within the system/ then failure and the death of this nation is a certainty: there is no choice, accept it.

33.  Section 51 of the original filing is a warning of a third trial

34.  Section 52 repeats Redress of grievances is a 1st amendment guaranteed right/ and there is sufficient subject matter and jurisdiction is absolutely clear throughout all aspect of these filings. Your perjury is mute. The right of due process means literally: whether I am a lawyer or not/ I DO DESERVE MY DAY IN COURT, and the mandate to the court by the nation is as it has always been, this judge and every judge SHALL do what you can as our employee, to make this happen, and bring justice to the nation. NOT PLAY in the pit of snakes, where arrogance believes "a friend to me"/ they are not.

35.  The use of courtroom rules and innuendo without merit has long and in many forms been used to destroy due process and constitutional right, as a tool for default and corruption of a judge. I tell you true, in a democracy of WE THE PEOPLE We have an equal standing/ you are not greater than me, nor am I to you: instead guaranteed rights and fundamental justice determine the truth. And the truth is, you preach nothing but hate.

36.  As to the ignorance and contempt of the court, by the US attorney. This attorney re-files their motion, after the court has rendered them and it moot. This is contempt, and it means the US attorney has returned the trial to its full force, or has disgraced the court, with its contempt. The charge is beyond duplicitous, it is a seizure of due process and the defiling of a public trust. These attorney's being paid to support the protection of society, and the hope of a "better world"/ having recognized the critical nature of the pleadings/ have deserted their duties and ran "screaming into their hole". Blindly pleading "don't let him get me". This appearance by the US ATTORNEY demands a reply, that is the nature of a courtroom discussion, I have no choice. Therefore again I say to you the entire filing returns to the court/ the order of the court is mute, because the US attorney demands participation, and now you must acknowledge the entire filing for it appears as one. Prove the US ATTORNEY has no power in the court/ or accept their demand.

37.  As to the arrogance, selfishness, greed, and revenge filed by Carle on march 14, 05. These lawyers do not even suggest they have worked, instead they use the judge/ and believe they are protected by its order/ therefore now they can attack. This is after the fact/ as they did not participate prior to this moment. NOW having chosen to participate and demanding an audience/ they have purposely chosen to enter trial and examine their responsibilities; this is their choice, not mine. For if I have responsibilities/ then so do they; is that not the purpose of the court to produce equity before all members and all participants. What is justice if all sides are not equal before the court? It is a fraud.

38.  Their lawyer states to the court #1 "Confusing, assuming it is directed to this courts order feb 28" My response entitled and emboldened Osterbur reply, to the court, response to order of the court 2/28/05 fundamentally charges contempt, frivolous and totally without merit: as the lawyer for the defense is not allowed to think for me or direct my words according to his desire. Therefore my response so entitled allows for no doubt, and the lawyer ridicules. Is this a function of the courthouse rules to allow ridicule of the plaintiff? Perhaps so, for lawyers commonly use statements and innuendo in a courtroom which in any other setting would be defamatory or liable.

39.  Federal rule 60 is not sustained, because contrary to the fundamental exercise of authority, the first rule that applies in this trial is the request for legal aid to be provided by the court, due to the national interests involved. Rule 60 is thereby moot to the lawyers charge, because the judge and his order are in violation of the first rule of any courtroom: the law decides/ not the judge, not the rules/ but the law. The law that governs all these decisions is based upon the constitution of America, and it has NOT been disproved/ therefore the filing stands as presented. The judge lies and disgraces the court/ the lawyers for Carle only presume I am defeated. As to the constant, Courtroom ridicule of "without support", I tell you true, JUSTICE does not demand rules/ JUSTICE DEMANDS EQUALITY, EQUITY, AND UNDERSTANDING THROUGH TRUTH AND EVIDENCE.

40.  The fundamental purposes of this trial are clear/ neither the court or the lawyers on any side, are illiterate, and none seeks to contest with the foundations presented, all hide.

41.  #2 of the lawyers response states conclusory or imaginary statements of alleged misconduct which might....without support or merit and simply stated for inflammatory purposes and can thus be disregarded. In response, returning to the order in review of judge baker, he a federal court judge can find NO jurisdiction over any single charge filed, not one: HE LIES. Leaving me with two choices, either continue knowing without doubt; even if the filing were "perfect under the rules of the court/ it is without doubt, the end is pre-determined, a matter of prejudice and evidence. Or as chosen to expand the case into an expression that the common citizen can recognize as a failure of the court. I chose the latter, and this is the courts decision not mine. It is the courts failure, not mine. To quantify that statement the dictionary meaning of subject matter is quote: the thing in dispute, the nature of the cause of action; the real issue of fact or law presented for trial as between those parties, & the object of a contract. The judge and you understand the subject matter perfectly, even if it is beyond the norm.

42.  The judge claims he has no cause for original jurisdiction over any matter represented in the filing or in the reply: original jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the court to hear a matter in the first instance. As applied under article 3 section 2 cl 1 "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution.... " the 7 examples provided in the osterbur reply GRANT THE 1ST AMENDMENT REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES unless the court can prove otherwise. The court is mute/ therefore the 1st amendment stands! Did I not provide this is a redress of grievances according to the 1st amendment? I DID indeed.

43.  The judge argues, that in "26 pages" of the original filing, there is NO controversy that exceeds $75,000.00 in dispute. The judge lies, and in so doing defiles the court of the United States of America.

44.  Baker asserts a conclusory, improper, and inflammatory statement; "Can he read my mind". He provides no support for his statements and no merit can be found to support his statement/ it is rebuked.

45.  Baker asserts a filing dedicated to national interests is for the "illinois courtroom". He thereby deserts his post and his duty and hides in innuendo and failure. He states no basis: Basis is a gain or loss that could or did or could occur within the proceedings or because of them. Again and with certainty, nothing less than the life or death of the nation itself is a consequence of these issues and these filings of case 05-2038; because NO contest has been given/ NO argument exists to refute this claim. Prove me wrong.

46.  Baker concludes he finds NO cause and NO understanding of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, or 14th amendments. Baker continues to assert this is strictly a personal billing dispute/ even though a grade school level education knows it is not. Baker suggests that NO problem exists in Carles billing practices, and that I have no right to be informed, expect a fair & reasonable billing, or that it is unfair that I must defend myself as does every patient against an army of litigators. Baker demands financial repercussions are not real, and do not critically wound the lives of millions of people every year/ turn this case into a class action suit and we will see. Take a look, and explain to me exactly where the justice in these things is located, prove that justice occurred; is this too much to ask?. Baker says "I am clearly insufficient in my complaint" . I DISAGREE, for any jury in the land would understand "better than baker" therefore his position is deserted/ and his order rebuked.

47.  #2b the reply to the court states beyond doubt in 7 short & plain & clear descriptions (page 4) exactly why a redress of grievances is necessary and there is NO MORE CLEAR usage of language in any text or in any law book, that can refute its subject matter is clearly within the 1st amendment and the protection of the nation. This is a matter about life or death of the nation. This is a matter that asserts; you cannot disprove without investigation any single description, certainly not 7/ therefore DO YOUR DUTY and protect the nation.

48.  #2c The bankruptcy & greed of the medical industry describes a situation that has deteriorated even to the possibility of the death of the nation itself [prove when 50 million people learn, they have nothing/ that consequences are not imminent] prove that a redress of grievances is not the most and only tool available along with WE THE PEOPLE, to stop this destruction. Greed is the tool used to create this trouble, prove the medical industry is not greedy and at the forefront of this failure and fraud. It does belong.

49.  #3 The failures of a judge does not produce sufficient subject matter for the failure of a court. Your rule here is irrelevant. You are now the participant who lacks subject matter, as you have failed to assert why I should owe you anything. Your assertion of "not for profit" Has been heard and will now be contested in the future. Everything you filed is about the decay of value and subsequent imaginary statements that protect no one/ in reality not even yourselves. I filed for honor, duty, and the life of a nation: WHERE is your honor?

50.  The need fo court, remains the only motive involved in my demand for trial 05-2038. I HAVE PROVEN SUBSTANTIAL NEED AND RIGHT. Therefore the court, the judge, & the reality of trial have been expanded "beyond the norm" for this type of pleading/ because NOTHING LESS will do.

51.  As to bakers final words, he appears to become petty, refusing to allow electronic filing. In reality it is a trick he learned from the bastard's of the 7th federal appeals court in chicago. The 3 judges who conspired to rule against me in perjury by throwing out 2 cases with merit, using Mather v. village of Mundelein 869 F 2d 356, 357 (7th circuit 1989) Their own case and own verdict.

52.  This is a case about christmas ornaments on village property/ and neither case had anything to do with religion, christmas, or village properties or anything of the kind. A clear and simple perjury in collusion with each other/ they conspired to commit fraud/ and steal my rights as a citizen and did so: it is a felony; Because my rights are worth something more than money.

53.  To cover their tracks, these frauds issued a expunge from the court order to remove the evidence. But I still have my copy. Baker no doubt intended to do the same/ by remaining in paper he could use the concept of "Trash reduction"/ whereas electronic filing would be much harder to submit, without attention directed at that action.

54.  Again this review is NOT MY expectation or design. I intended to use the information gathered for BETTER PURPOSES/ but arrogance and pride insisted. Therefore we begin again/ the order of the court is removed by cause of fraud rule 60> 3 and by failure and criminal intent rule 60> 6 and more.

55.  Your interests are no longer important to me, whether you gain or lose irrelevant to me/ let the war begin: with this one exception.

56.  There are enough enemies in this world, choose to help me protect the nation and support the honor of society and democracy, and we will "be friendly".

57.  So there can be no doubt/ this redress is not about me, the reality is an invitation to all who can and will speak across the nation, they present the nation decides. But I would participate. These issues are the intent of this trial, not me. You cannot say you don't understand, because even a child would/ a jury without doubt, therefore you have no defense/ unless you can prove the 7 categories within the reply are in error. And you must prove substantially that these things do not truly endanger the nation and the world, otherwise they shall stand/ even if you desert.

58.  as of today, an order arrives from judge baker, striking the “osterbur reply”  as immaterial. And not in response to the courts 2/28/05 order/ further 4/6/05 at 9:30  in courtroom B at federal court in Urbana is set for hearings to address the issue raised by Carle demanding money.   Dated 3/ 23/ 05

59.   jurisdiction of this judge is then contested in this matter to be held as a motion trial 4/6/05.  Evidence has been provided as to the legitimacy of his claim to be impartial or doing his duty. He has effectively selected a tiny matter from the original filing, moved to denounce and disclaim justifiable  and harmless  under rule 61 of federal rules, as nothing  used by the judge can be held as consistent with “substantial justice”.  And again “the court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. 

60.  I have instead held to the five required elements of a lawsuit:    it is a wrong to be held without equity or rights to a contractual debt, without full disclosure prior to making a decision in that debt. I have produced 7 distinct injuries and wrongs against the nation and me, which the judge discounts, because he refused to do his duty and protect the nation. I have submitted that the medical greed is in fact a situation that has been addressed, and he has “shit on it” because he is prejudiced to the aspects of fundamental justice and the truth of trial:   that justice is not, “held up by  conspirators or corruptions that in effect are common criminal activities: a simple thief, hiding in the dark in the alley”. I have demonstrated with truth and evidence that this nation is bankrupt producing irrefutable evidence in the form of the federal reserve, and demanding action lest the reality that comes from this deception and fraud/ devours the nation itself/ the judge vomits on this, and runs scared into the alley for more destructive actions.

61.  jurisdiction has been established, the subject matter is known and explained in detail/ whether you like it or not. Federal courts enforce “federal law”   or more correctly the United states constitution, and the intent of democracy:  which is clearly    WE THE PEOPLE   !  Therefore the judge acts with insolence and disrespect for democracy as well as against the constitution itself

62.    In more clear detail the preamble of the constitution which describes the state of  our union, and the responsibilities of all citizens including judges: states   WE the people,    in order to form a more perfect union {a duty to challenge, where life is inadequate to defend itself;  such as medical billing} establish justice { wherein a pro se plaintiff must act whether “legally schooled or not”/ because fools are using rules and various other deliberate tools to disavow and discredit true justice and fundamental EQUITY (Equity means I am equal with this judge/ not under or over, the law decides not the rules:  the law is the constitution, and the amendments used and the filings clearly prove a right) {these filings are about justice, take a look, not one word from the judge about anything relating to justice because he has no defense/ arguments stating rules or laws inferior to protecting society or personal rights to contest are an infringement of rights/ not a protection of them;   I do not ask for anything less than the protection of society/ I have received only the disgrace of  misfeasance, and the mistrial of a judge prejudiced against me from the beginning; due to past matters which he could not legally dismiss then either; a fact that caused the appellate court judges to conspire and commit perjury and felony larceny [lies which robbed me of due process].

63.  the preamble of the constitution further states that it is the job of the government and the people to “insure domestic tranquility”  {the protection of  the peace, by demanding bankruptcy and national depression be mediated, cannot be understated/ the judge finds this frivolous}.  “providing for the common defense” means literally the court shall “bend over backwards to provide access to the court system/ making certain every person, receives an adequate trial for the purposes of justice {this court plays with the amendments/ supports organized crime by disrupting the proceedings to spread contempt throughout the nation and certainly to everyone who seeks justice {this too is a crime, punishable by the removal from the bench/ if a jury would understand, a judge must as well/ NO EXCUSES.}

64.  the preamble of the constitution ends with “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”   {a right to trial, did you provide lawyers as requested? No you did not,  therefore you are required to give me access to court by demand of the fourteenth amendment section 1, try reading it.}  if you do not produce an honorable and honest cause/ why the  filings are not important to the people and to the nation, or to me personally/   then I DO HAVE A GUARANTEED RIGHT, to justice, and not less than respect. This judge has no respect, and uses his seat as a weapon, not for civil actions or civil rights but contempt for all the people of America.  Pay attention, if this pleading is insufficient to acquire a hearing in fact rather than pretense/ then no citizen can be granted anything supporting justice, and the lawyers and judges have taken again a hostile possession of the court and used it against the people: who do you defend with these actions?  It is not the people of America, it is the blight of greed and power/ the actual opposite of democracy, which means “traitors are in charge”.  The court is cognizable to this type of evidence:   it means literally you are stealing democracy, and you should all be ashamed for the reality of those who disgrace you.

65.   the demand is quit sending men and women to their deaths in other countries, and for once in your lives stand up for the democracy that we are. In other words,    produce JUSTICE, do not talk, do not complain, do not run and hide/ DO YOUR DUTY, AND DEFEND LIFE.

66.  There are no limitations in the first amendment/ therefore I a citizen of the United States, am allowed by law to demand the 1st amendment be upheld. NO  EVIDENCE from the court exists, to confront this claim or denounce it/ the “bastard of the court” merely deserts the constitution, the duty, his position, his employment, and his dignity.

67.  There is no immunity/ because the judge is not performing his duties as directed by law/ he is hiding in rules to disgrace the law, and prove all that is wrong with the court today.

68.  There is no conscience in this court;  for this judge shows no standard of decency or fairness. Rather bigotry uses the rules and the lies of this court to escape from duty and design revenge and failure.

69.   THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE of true concern to the nation are in plain view, the reality of mischief in the court and outright disgrace is also in plain view. The foundation of critical merit is based not in rules BUT IN REALITY, as it is supported by TRUTH ITSELF.     You can see it, and you do know this is true and real and legitimate for its proclaimed intent:   to protect the nation, and resolve issues that are both troubling, damaging, and blatantly wrong.

70.   IF I MUST  do more than has been provided/ then you merely play with the lives of us all, for you do know the judge uses me for a victim/ I have plainly told you the appellate judges in this district are unrepentant liars, and provided evidence in the record baker has been picking apart without cause and expulsing. And you are all conspirators and by that measure, if you know and can react better/ then you desert the law, the democracy, and justice for us all:  “it is the definition of a traitor”:   WHO THEN ARE YOU?

71.   by rights,  I do claim protection from all actions against me under the federal whistle blowers act:   are these things less than money? While this act may or may not be specific to this case/ the reality of justice knows, that actions used by a judge to dispense tyranny is against the constitution itself  Article 3 section one states “shall hold their offices during good behavior”  does this not mean where bad behaviors are clearly in evidence/ there shall be penalties. Is the travesty and wrongdoing of a judge less than a corporate official? I tell you it is the very same/ or more correctly worse, because society is dependent upon the court? And they fail, just as worldcom, enron or any other. I find myself a whistle blower at this moment/ due to unconstitutional activities in the courtrooms of America:  YOU MUST prove it is the intent of democracy and justice to remove the pro se litigant from the courtroom  and deny due process and its appropriate justice/ to surrender the courtroom to the greed of lawyers and judges: who else can enter court: YOU HAVE PROVEN, no justice exists for the citizen of America in this court, and HOW MANY others. No need to clutter the reality with nonsense regarding law and rules/   it is clear and certain, baker will move to expel this portion of the record as well.  And I do know by the evidence already in force within this trial 05-2038  that an absolute perfect document  would be insulted in the same way if it came from my hand/ to this judge.

72.   I HAVE presented pleadings under health laws, and you know it/ I HAVE presented pleadings under anti-trust laws, and you know it/ I HAVE presented pleadings under civil right and guaranteed by the constitution laws, and you know it/ I HAVE presented pleadings under contract laws, and you know it/ I HAVE presented pleadings culpable by the court whose job it is to guarantee dispute resolution, only to have the court conspire to falsify testimony and the judge pleads “too stupid to understand”/ rules are NOT your “get out of jail card”, to reduce honesty to larceny. The code of conduct for justice is “JUSTICE FIRST”! 

73.   In closing, the demonstration of facts herein and hereby through this trial 05-2038 submits THE UNITED STATES COURT SYSTEM IN AMERICA is in disarray and presents evidence in direct disrepute of all the democracy stands for:     fundamentally meaning,   if no american citizen can participate in an honest courtroom hearing wherein any seated jury from society itself would fully understand the evidence and the purpose as for justice/ then the judge who denounces justice, discounts claims to the preference of rules,  and destroys the liberty of a practicing democracy of WE THE PEOPLE,     is fully in rebellion against the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

74.  the above document is sent to  “MANY PLACES” of both media and the court system of America.  Let it be clear, “I do not walk behind closed doors, in hidden places without turning on the lights and inviting people in”.

75.  liberty herein means;   the right to participate in truth, for the betterment of society. This court, this judge, and previous courts have proven beyond doubt,   that truth is not a participant in the courtroom of America/ and society is literally a worthless inconvenience to many judges. The purpose of a federal court is to hold the matters of democracy to a higher level than at any other place in society/ they are given the job of protecting the constitution and the values of a true democracy.       NOTHING OF THIS KIND, can be found in federal court/  prove this is not so. The issuances of rules, the demands for begging, the blatant lies, and the attempts to cover up and remove any case they “don’t like” is not judicial/ it is larceny against the people.

76.  I did provide substantial cause for trial and hearing/ I did say to the court, I am not a lawyer, send one because this affects all the people:   a medical industry against society, through the use of greed. I did provide evidence, and supported that evidence with facts. The hearsay of the judge in demanding useless little rules, is both frivolous and demonstrates true discrimination. Is this justice/ NO IT IS NOT.

77.  I did not come saying “I am right, listen to me”/ INSTEAD I came saying these things are serious affecting all of society and we need to investigate and decide what can be done before very bad things occur. It is hypocrisy to assert, that a federal court is not for this purpose, all laws go to this very purpose/ but politics are distinctly the problem, and evidence in the form of a national debt which proves bankruptcy MEANS it is no longer a political problem, redress is the only solution. It is this reality that DOES demand a national redress of grievances within the 1st amendment. Therefore this trial is about “the very employees of government that are hired to protect us/ and did not”.

78.  the consequence of these realities is now the subjection of all participants to the original truths explained in the filings of this case 05-2038.   The purpose of the state of Illinois being a defendant now comes to fruition:  I a citizen of ILLINOIS, a state of the United States of America, whose very position is intended to support the citizen against inappropriate advances of the federal government is asked:   where is my protection/ it is not in the constitution if those individual employees refuse to honor it/ such as this judge. I am one/ the state of IL is many, BUT THE JUDGE is only one as well. The power of democracy is in its constitution, NOT in its employees; therefore I do assert, that your position here is to defend the constitution both of the US and the state of IL and support life, by protecting  against GROSS NEGLIGENCE and blatant lies.

79.  the consequence of these realities now goes to the defense of all positions:  Carle states “we are not-for-profit” apparently under all their various names.  The question to the state of Illinois is    “what does not for profit mean: can they take out ANY amount of money for personal usage, and declare themselves “in the hole” financially due to all they “give to the public”.   Who decides and who checks what they claim as a service and appropriate cost? Where will I find this information, and when was it last documented in a manner suitable to courtroom examination.

80.  in the consequence of these realities, the position of  the University of Illinois also comes into view, and begins within the 7 basic tragedies set apart in the “osterbur reply, march 4, 2005 to the court”.   YOU are to present “expert information” regarding the truth about fusion energy and the consequences thereof. YOU shall be aware the evidence of fusion energy is the sun/ and you shall assert only what you can prove: otherwise to shall profess, the level of risk that fusion represents/ and WHY if there is any risk for turning the entire planet into a fire ball, anyone should be allowed to experiment with our lives and our future. Be clear.

81.  as we return to trial/  either in the courtroom or in the media view / some will suggest “ I attacked the judge from the outset, setting him up for failure”. It is not true,  he accepted the case from another/ knowing it was me;  should he not be considered  forewarned.  In preparation for this trial, a previous trial as listed in the documents was initiated. The purpose of that trial was to ascertain whether anything had changed since the last time in court “perhaps justice or a resemblance to respect had been born”?  clearly it was not so, and I asked in methods of the court and in personal “have you changed” questions before the court.  Therefore from the beginning, it WAS NECESSARY to approach the court as a hostile witness/ because that is exactly what would and did come.

82.  I am not a lawyer, therefore the options are limited to me/ and the claimed immunities so broad  “a terrorist can harbor in them” or a judge. This anticipatory breach because of evidence in the past IS CLEARLY a result of past experience with this judge/ who when he discovered he could not participate as a judge, should have reclused himself from the proceedings: he did not, a question he needs to answer.

83.  it is certain the US attorney expects protection from all counts by the court, even though due to the nature of the filings it is clear and certain these two have sought desertion from their duties/ and with reckless disregard portrayed the American people as abandoned. It should not be so!

84.  this document “call it anything you like, because nothing in your rules will change it”/ it is my statement and my presence in the court for the april 6, 05 at 9:30. It is sent earlier that you may decide what you intend to do, before you act upon it: but it may not be thrown out under any circumstance prior to court on 4/6/05 as it does stand there as my presence in court before the judge. We both know, my presence is irrelevant to the outcome of this motion trial/ and this document is my words, my defense, and my right to stand before the court.  IT IS A FACT,  that any written document can be used against me, in a wide range of legal realities/ therefore it is a legal presence, and it is my statement to you:  that no matter what is said, this is my  only response to this motion trial.

85.  I will however remind you clearly, having removed all other filings and dumped them in the trash/ if you throw this document out/ then you have no excuse to do less than throw out all motions against me: EVERY ONE.  If you do not, then you have acted without evidence or fact/ and have threatened my life without cause.  Is this not a criminal intent?

86.  THE ISSUE of revenge, is clear in this motion trial/ therefore I refuse to be present so that an “imaginary frown” or he didn’t like the way I was dressed  cannot be confused with an opportunity to raise the issue of contempt. I have no opportunity to defend myself in this courtroom/ against such hypocrisy, therefore I will not present the opportunity/ and you have no right to command my presence.

87.  we now come to the “moment of truth” as it regards this proceeding:  it is time as a nation to choose sides, whether you vote with your life and your standing in community to be  “ a citizen with guaranteed rights in a court of law/ or not”.   The fact that the content of trial is not to your liking is irrelevant, truth doesn’t care what you like. Truth is the difference, that decides the future.

88.  as has been plainly described in all these documents, unless the 3 judges who chose perjury and lies in the 7th circuit of the federal appeals court in Chicago have all been removed/ I will not proceed to appeals. I do refuse to participate further in the tragedy that is their lives. The outcome is very predictable; therefore it is meaningless.

89.  therefore an ultimatum is given to the district court/ find a new judge that we may proceed herein:   OR MOVE this trail to the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.   Because it does involve the entire nation, our future, our lives, and our past: in NO uncertain terms.

For mailing purposes, the following is added for clarity/ not sent to court: Those realities are:

1. The threat of economic devastation, the threat of bloodshed due to economic devastation

2. The reality of weapons of mass destruction, causing our extinction/ not a savior, but a true enemy and how they may be defeated and not controlled, but removed from the earth.

3.  The threat of genetic mutilation and the consequence of nature being forced to surrender to idiots/ and our extermination from the earth as a reality, not a guess or a game.

4. The threat of resource depletion, and how we are mass murdering the future generations, just to throw their needs in the garbage.

5. The threat of over-population, and the reality that the earth at this rate will exceed 8 billion people within 20 years/   we will starve, and be at war.

6. The threat of corruption in business and in government and in the courts, that has caused all these problems to exist

7.  The threat of fusion, a reality described as Anuclear fire@/ in other words, everything atomic is on fire/ HOW will they control it, or put it out, when everything is fuel?

8. The damage done by the government allowing the religion called evolution to be at the center of most of these problems/ and removing it.

9. The damage done by the medical industry and the need for change.

10. The threat of Afactory farms@ whereby these cannot exist in animal populations without antibiotics/ and this practice of farming is destroying our antibiotics/ whereas we will lose surgery, we will lose most of the medicine valued today, and it must stop.

11. The threat of damaging the ocean, and the primary source of food for half of the worlds people; and all ecosystems on earth due to pollution and a variety of factors, including global warming.

12.  The primary purpose of this redress of grievances is then to create and establish a sustainable society, of peace and harmony/ and remove from us all the bastard influences that seek our extinction.