TABLE OF APPENDICES        
summary appendices are combined into their respective order: all orders of the appellate court being appendix A all replies to appellate court appendix B all orders of the district court appendix C and so on.  Each appendix individually numbered in sequence. Each short presentation for clarity, or understanding is with law attached.

Page 2-6
APPENDIX   A- ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT 7th circuit chicago IL   case #11-1639
Page     8-9                              
APPENDIX 1A - the legal standard set by the appellate court in its order March 21, 2011
Page 9
APPENDIX 2- demand set upon lawyer Hoff order April 1, 2011
Page 10-11
APPENDIX   2 A case no. 11-1639
ORDER OF THE COURT; APRIL 1, 2011
Page 11
APPENDIX   3A: rehearing , the plaintiff’s words   April 15, 2011   11-1639
Page 11
APPENDIX 4 A :   11-1639 rehearing denied; April 22, 2011
page 11
APPENDIX   5 A;   mandate of the court
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
June 6, 2011
page 11-12
APPENDIX 6 A:    NOTICE OF FILING, by petitioner/ ESTABLISHMENT OF CAUSE TO REMOVE, DELAY, OR DEFEAT MANDATE TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE. case no. 11-1639

page 13

APPENDIX 7 A :  This petitioner claims: for the purpose of understanding case no. 11-1639
Page 13____________________________________

the petitioner responds: to the court orders of 11-1639  appendix B; 

#8        APPENDIX B ;  INTRODUCTION to the case 11-1639.  BY THE PETITIONER, a right expected as it is given to every judge.  EQUAL standing/ the law decides, it is supreme, not the judge. 814 F.  Supp.  195.  For clarity.
Page 14
#9     Appendix   B2  Constitutional questions applied to order April 12, 2011
page 15-16
#10    Appendix B 3 Constitutional questions applied to order March 21, 2011
page 16-17
#11    Appendix B 4 Constitutional questions applied to order April 1, 2011  case no. 11-1639
page 17-18
#12     Appendix   B 5 the petitioner replies;   treason in the court. 96 P. 2d. 588, 591
page 18
#13     APPENDIX  C;    order of the district court.
Page 19-20
#14    APPENDIX C2         10-CV-2257
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
page 20-21
#15    APPENDIX   D:    response to the district court order of June 7, 2011

THE REPRINT OF DISTRICT COURT ORDER, with formal  constitutional questions/ by their corresponding number in the writ;  applied to descriptions without merit.
Page 21-22
 # 16    APPENDIX E:    THE LEGAL STANDARD established in this US supreme court trial;
THE FOUNDATION of the United States of America
page 23
 #17     APPENDIX F-  BRIEF DISCUSSION the petitioner responds for clarity.  This US supreme court trial.
Page 24-25
#18    APPENDIX G:     REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT
page 25-30
#19     APPENDIX H; a short review by the plaintiff;  of district court report and recommendation     10-CV-2257
page 30-32
#20      APPENDIX   I :   plaintiff initial  FILING #1, dated 11/15/10 :    10-CV-2257 excerpt.
from report and recommendation;
Court states: “  ...that a complaint consists only of naked assertions and delusional scenarios.”
Page 33
#21     APPENDIX  I, 2 : plaintiff initial dated 11/15/10 FILING #1      10-CV-2257   SUBSTANCE DOCKET
   court states: “establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity as required by law, and failure to vest this court with subject matter jurisdiction”
page 33-34
#22     APPENDIX I, 3:   “THE DEMAND ON THE COURT”:   DOCKET FILING #1 dated 11/ 15/ 10    10-CV-2257

 report and recommendation
     court states “Plaintiff makes unspecified demands for “redress of grievances” and Compliance with the Constitution”. My response:
page 34
 #23    APPENDIX I, 4  :    THE ISSUANCE OF “subject matter” as is fitting for a common citizen to do/ in the words and elements of life that are realistic for him.  The foundation for every pro se defense: is listen to my complaint, and how it causes me grief/ because that, is why I am here. 342 F.  Supp.  1048, 1062 (see appendix #24).
 response too. Case 10-2257 report and recommendations.  The court selects:
page 35
#24     APPENDIX J;   PLAINTIFF BRIEF INTRODUCTION from the writ of this supreme court case:  establishing : the purpose or defining of      THE QUESTION PRESENTED FIRST:       for the plaintiff.    For clarity.
Page 35-36
#25     APPENDIX K:   PLAINTIFF BRIEF INTRODUCTION:   from the writ, of this supreme court trial.    THE QUESTION PRESENTED 1:           FOR THE PEOPLE,   for clarity
page 36
#26     APPENDIX L;     PLAINTIFF BRIEF INTRODUCTION:   from the writ, of this supreme court trial.
        QUESTION PRESENTED 2: for the people FOR CLARITY.
Page 36-37
#27     APPENDIX   M - DOCKET EXCERPTS FROM APPEALS    Case  11-1639 district report and recommendation 2257 reviewed.
Page 37-44

#28     APPENDIX M : DOCKET REPLY FOR DE NOVO TRIAL 11-1639
page 44-46
#29     APPENDIX   O:   SUMMARY REVIEW GIVEN IN 2257; establishing “plain and simple”.
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION
page 47
#30     APPENDIX   O2 :   A CONCISE AND VALID CLAIM FOR RELIEF
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION
page 47-49
#31     APPENDIX   O3 :  A VALID WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
page 49-50
#32     APPENDIX   O4 :  
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION
page 50-51
#33     APPENDIX O5 :  SUMMARY
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION
page 51

    APPENDIX P:   IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM:  CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION. ________________________________

 #34 APPENDIX   P : DOCKETED,   US SUPREME COURT   08-1339
ADDED IN AS PROOF OF “REDRESS” DENIAL, BY THE JUDICIARY; from the top down. Collusion/ conspiracy/ corruption; against redress, a guaranteed right.
Page 51-53

# 35        APPENDIX P 2   : 09-LM- 1414   Conspiracy to deny redress of grievances;   A medical billing case, relying on contractual law.
page 53-54
#36     APPENDIX   P 3 :   from the initial filing page one    The preceding trial 10-2055, which then became appeals 10-2146 excerpt CORRUPTION. COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY
page 54-56
#37     APPENDIX P4  ; 10-2055 then became FEDERAL appeals 7TH circuit:  10-2146 order of the court       CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY.
may 10, 2010
Circuit rule 3 (b) empowers the clerk to dismiss
page 557
#38     APPENDIX P 6  : 10-2146         REALITY  “ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION”
PLAINTIFF circuit rule 3 (c) docketing statement dated 6/1/2010
page 57-58
#39     APPENDIX   P7;    From the initial filing of trial  07-2040      first two pages. REFINING WHY this is not tax evasion or the intent to claim “no tax”.   The functional assertion: I am promised, by this government:   better than this!
         Establishing the “pro se way”/ as any other citizen might.  115 A.  484, 486   185 A.  401.  ART 1 SECTION 10   US CONSTITUTION
page 58-61
#40     APPENDIX   P8;    Current trial 11-2111 US DISTRICT COURT:   make the state of IL honor its constitutional amendment granting:   IL constitutional,  redress of grievances to the people.
page 61-62
#41      Appendix P9   MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 11-2111. Establishing collusion, corruption; not yet finished.
Page 62

#42     APPENDIX   P 10: US DISTRICT COURT, central district of  IL 11-2111 memorandum; defendants “illegal” motion for sanctions/ plaintiff exhibit B
page 62-63
#43      APPENDIX P 11:   CURRENT TRIAL 10-2277
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7/15/11 excerpts.
 Plaintiff describes as“The elements of corruption”
page 63-64
#44       APPENDIX P 12           This trial 10-2277  is a demand to make the state defend, the citizens of IL by the authority of federal government.  Excerpts. Case record file. Establishing collusion.
Page 64-66
#45      APPENDIX P 13     This trial 10-2277; extends from state of IL, champaign county 10- MR-766 excerpts: 
 THE SIGNS OF A true CONSPIRACY, “NOTHING is more important than controlling the people”
page 66-77   
#46      APPENDIX Q   THE FOUNDATION OF WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT added to #45 extreme issues that we must address from www.justtalking3.info
page 77-82
#47     APPENDIX R:    Letter, To the clerk of the court;   Ruth Jones
page 82-86

APPENDIX A 
 THE ORDER of the appellate court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the seventh  circuit,
Chicago IL 60604
order April 12, 2011
before
William J. Bauer/ Terrence T. Evans/ Ann Claire Williams

case no. 11-1639
James F. Osterbur ; pro se
vs.
USA, et al, defendants
appealed from US district/ central IL
David G. Bernthal, judge

ORDER

On consideration of the papers filed in this appeal and review of the short record,   it is ordered that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Litigants may permit magistrate judges to decide civil cases, and an appeal from the magistrate judge’s decision comes straight to the court of appeals.  28 U.S.C.  636 (C)       .  But unless all parties to the litigation consent on the record, the magistrate judge may do no more than make a recommendation, and the parties must present their objections to the district court.  Brook & Weinberg V.  Coreg, Inc, 53 F. 3d 851 (7th circuit, 1995).
In the present case, the parties have not consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge.  Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a review of the magistrate judge’s “report and recommendation” of March 15, 2011.”

APPENDIX 1    case no. 11-1639
ORDER OF THE COURT;   MARCH 21/ 2011
A preliminary review of the short record indicates that the order appealed from may not be an appealable judgment.

Litigants may permit magistrate judges to decide civil cases, and an appeal from the magistrate judge’s decision comes straight to the court of appeals.  28 U.S.C. ~ 636(c).  But unless all parties to the litigation consent on the record, the magistrate judge may do no more than make a recommendation, and the parties must present their objections to the district court.  Brook & Weinberg v.  Coreg, Inc., 53 F,.  3d 851 (7th cir.  1995).

In the present case, it does not appear that the parties consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge.  Therefore, it appears that this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a review of the magistrate judge’s “report and recommendation” of March 15, 2011.  Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that both appellant and appellees shall file, on or before April 4, 2011, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b)    will satisfy this requirement.  Briefing shall be suspended pending further court order.

APPENDIX   2 A case no. 11-1639
ORDER OF THE COURT; APRIL 1, 2011

A review of the “JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM” filed by assistant United States Attorney David H. Hoff on March 30, 2011, reveals that attorney Hoff has not responded to the issue of appellate jurisdiction identified in the court’s order of March 21, 2011.   Accordingly,

The court, on its own motion, orders attorney Hoff to show cause for his failure to respond to the court’s order of March 21, 2011; the issue that the court wants addressed is one of appellate jurisdiction, now waiver.  Attorney Hoff shall file his response on or before April 4, 2011. 

APPENDIX   3A: rehearing , the plaintiff’s words   April 15, 2011   11-1639
“These judges, have deliberately attacked this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  Seeking to damage and destroy a distinct law, and a foundation of the American way of life: a guaranteed right cast aside like sewer water/ using the distinct weapon of a courtroom against this very people.  Wherein right says: ONLY THE LAW IS ALLOWED.  There is no discretion allowed, not for any judge or group of judges.  IT’S THE LAW, of our DEMOCRACY as a people united!  These judges abandoned the law/ their oath/ this nation/ and our constitution: playing games with our lives, defining and creating ridicule of me and us all.  By assembling a barrier to hold our right and our nation within their control.”

 APPENDIX 4 A :   11-1639 rehearing denied; April 22, 2011
upon consideration of the APPELLANTS MOTION, which the court constitutes as a motion, to file an oversized petition for rehearing, filed by the pro se appellant.   IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.

APPENDIX   5 A;   mandate of the court
NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
June 6, 2011

to: Pamela E. Robinson 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

central district of IL
US courthouse
Urbana IL. 81802-4469

no: 11-1639
James F. Osterbur   plaintiff-appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al defendants-appellees

originating case information
District court no: 2: 10- cv-02257- MPM-DGB
central district of Illinois
Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal

Herewith is the mandate of this court in this appeal, along with the Bill of Costs, if any.  A certified copy of the opinion/ order of the court and judgment, if any, and any direction as to costs shall constitute the mandate.

Record on appeal status:   no record to be returned

note to counsel: if any physical and large documentary exhibits have been filed in the above-entitled cause, they are to be withdrawn ten (10) days from the date of this notice.  Exhibits not withdrawn during this period will be disposed of.

Please acknowledge receipt of these documents on the enclosed copy of this notice.

Received above mandate and record, if any, from the Clerk,   US Court of Appeals for the seventh circuit.

 APPENDIX 6 A:    NOTICE OF FILING, by petitioner/ ESTABLISHMENT OF CAUSE TO REMOVE, DELAY, OR DEFEAT MANDATE TO DISPOSE OF THIS CASE. case no. 11-1639

THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT, case 10‑CV‑2257;   HAS NOW BEEN RECEIVED/ ELIMINATING THE CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL FROM THE APPELLATE COURT, in this case.
THEREFROM, this case is reset before the US SUPREME court, for review prior to printing on this date June 10, 2011

you are hereby informed, that they have authority/ and you are to wait until the US SUPREME COURT makes its decision in this case.  As identified in this preliminary filing sent to the supreme court & sent to you/ and each defendant; as a “complimentary notice” at this time..

 APPENDIX 7 A :  This petitioner claims: for the purpose of understanding case no. 11-1639
{This mandate of the court:
IS SIMPLY HIDE THE EVIDENCE, A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS, by THE CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE a constitutional case, because it is a constitutional law called redress:   by the whim and discretion of a judge}.  That is treason, an act distinctly directed at removing we the people from our government;  which is “the constitution of this USA”.

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

   Appendix B  the Petitioner responds, to APPENDIX “A”: for the purpose of this supreme court writ  case no. 11-1639

 #8        APPENDIX B ;  INTRODUCTION to the case 11-1639.  BY THE PETITIONER, a right expected as it is given to every judge.  EQUAL standing/ the law decides, it is supreme, not the judge. 814 F.  Supp.  195.  For clarity.

Established in this case is the fundamental constitutional question: DOES FIRST AMENDMENT REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES EXIST as a guaranteed right of the people or not.  Previous cases asking this same question were dissolved without substance or merit/ without law or a foundation upon which that judgment/ order could be made.  Consequently it reappears this time with the demand:    IF YOU DO NOT DO THE WORK that we the people contracted you to do, with respect/ honor/ dignity/ and fundamentally in alliance with the constitution: as is the right guaranteed to me called redress of grievances.  THEN I NEED NOT PAY ANY TAX, until the day our employees in governing positions DO THE JOB WE HIRED THEM TO DO.   
A claim/ demand for relief,  that can easily be fulfilled: 
ESTABLISH REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FOR THIS NATION, as demanded by the constitution, and me.
 OR ESTABLISH the foundation, merit, and law which says:   “The  constitution is:  all a joke/ doesn’t exist for real/ just a game”.  Democracy, the essence of a fool.

#9     Appendix   B2  Constitutional questions applied to order April 12, 2011

 THE REPRINT OF APPELLATE COURT ORDERS, with formal constitutional questions, by their corresponding numbers in the writ;  applied.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the seventh  circuit,
Chicago IL 60604
order April 12, 2011
before
William J. Bauer/ Terrence T. Evans/ Ann Claire Williams

case no. 11-1639
James F. Osterbur ; pro se
vs.
USA, et al, defendants
appealed from US district/ central IL
David G. Bernthal, judge

ORDER
(formal constitutional questions, as presented in the writ, by numbers:      #1, covers the entire appeal)

On consideration of the papers filed in this appeal and review of the short record,   it is ordered that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Constitutional Question 2)

Litigants may permit magistrate judges to decide civil cases (Constitutional question 3) , and an appeal from the magistrate judge’s decision comes straight to the court of appeals.  28 U.S.C.  636 (C)          .  But unless all parties to the litigation consent on the record (Constitutional question 4), the magistrate judge may do no more than make a recommendation (Constitutional question 5), and the parties must present their objections to the district court.  Brook & Weinberg V.  Coreg, Inc, 53 F. 3d 851 (7th circuit, 1995).(Constitutional question 6)
In the present case, the parties have not consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge.  (Constitutional Question 8)  Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed (Constitutional question 7) in a review of the magistrate judge’s “report and recommendation” of March 15, 2011.”

#10    Appendix B 3 Constitutional questions applied to order March 21, 2011

THE REPRINT OF APPELLATE COURT ORDERS, with constitutional questions applied.
case no. 11-1639

ORDER OF THE COURT;   MARCH 21/ 2011
A preliminary review of the short record indicates that the order appealed from may not be an appealable judgment. (Constitutional Question 9)

Litigants may permit magistrate judges to decide civil cases, and an appeal from the magistrate judge’s decision comes straight to the court of appeals.  28 U.S.C. ~ 636(c).  But unless all parties to the litigation consent on the record, (Constitutional question 10)  the magistrate judge may do no more than make a recommendation, and the parties must present their objections to the district court.  Brook & Weinberg v.  Coreg, Inc., 53 F,.  3d 851 (7th cir.  1995).

In the present case, it does not appear that the parties consented in writing to proceed before a magistrate judge. (Constitutional Question 11)  Therefore, it appears that this court lacks jurisdiction to proceed in a review of the magistrate judge’s “report and recommendation” of March 15, 2011.  Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that both appellant and appellees shall file, on or before April 4, 2011, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b)    will satisfy this requirement.  Briefing shall be suspended pending further court order.

#11    Appendix B 4 Constitutional questions applied to order April 1, 2011  case no. 11-1639

ORDER OF THE COURT; APRIL 1, 2011

THE REPRINT OF APPELLATE COURT ORDERS, with constitutional questions applied.

A review of the “JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM” filed by assistant United States Attorney David H. Hoff on March 30, 2011, reveals that attorney Hoff has not responded to the issue of appellate jurisdiction identified in the court’s order of March 21, 2011.   Accordingly,

The court, on its own motion, orders attorney Hoff to show cause for his failure to respond to the court’s order of March 21, 2011; the issue that the court wants addressed is one of appellate jurisdiction, now waiver.  Attorney Hoff shall file his response on or before April 4, 2011.  (Question 12: this is not due process in a constitutional case)

#12     Appendix   B 5 the petitioner replies;   treason in the court. 96 P. 2d. 588, 591

Revealed by the orders of this appellate court: IS THE FOUNDATION, and distinct demand: that a constitutional guaranteed right as is LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES shall not be honored by the court system of this USA.  That is treason/ the deliberate actions of an enemy in direct and open rebellion against the constitution of this USA, and thereby the democracy upon which it stands, called WE THE PEOPLE.
THE INTENT of the courts having been examined for the evidence required to assess what is true or not true in the judiciary and court system of this USA has found anarchy: 621 F. 2d.  123, 124.  the bold and deliberate attempt to destroy a foundation of our democracy/ a literal creation of our intent and demand to rule ourselves.  That is the action of a traitor.  Model penal code 212.5.  And the US SUPREME COURT is guilty as well.  Proven by US supreme court case 08-1339. (Question 10)  “The conspiracy runs deep”.  And thereby MUST be addressed by the congress of this USA should the court continue to commit treason, conspiracy, and collusion by this transgression against the people of this nation.   IT IS OUR CONSTITUTION/ IT IS OUR LAW/ IT IS OUR NATION:    WE ARE THE OWNERS HERE!   Our interpretation decides what democracy is, or is not.  28 U.S.C.  994.

#13     APPENDIX  C;    order of the district court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

dated June 7, 2011

JAMES F. OSTERBUR                            )
V.                                                )           Case no. USA et al.  Defendants           )       10-CV-2257

ORDER

On March 15, 2011, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and Recommendation (#27) in this case. Judge Bernthal recommended that the Motion to Dismiss (#6) be granted and the pro se Complaint (#1) filed by Plaintiff James F. Osterbur, be dismissed as to all Defendants.  On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se Notice of Appeal (#28).  On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se Objection (#32)  to the Report and Recommendation. On April 11, 2011,  Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objection (#36) .  Plaintiff filed a pro se Reply (#37) on April 15, 2011.  On June 6, 2006 (<a date error from the court), this court received the mandate from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that Plaintiff’s pro se appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to review Judge Bernthal’s report and recommendation.

The case is now back before this court.  This court has carefully reviewed Judge Bernthal’s Report and Recommendation (#27), Plaintiff’s pro se Objection (#32), Defendant’s Response (#36), and Plaintiff’s pro se Reply (#37).  This court notes that this review has been complicated by Plaintiff’s rambling and mostly unintelligible filings with this court.  Following this court’s careful and thorough de novo review, this court agrees with and accepts Judge Bernthal’s report and recommendation.  This court completely agrees that Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint demonstrates no coherent claim or request for relief and that the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) the Report and Recommendation (#27) is accepted by this court.
(2) The Motion to Dismiss (#6) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s Complaint (#1) is dismissed as to all Defendants.
(3) this case is terminated.  Accordingly, any remaining pending motions are MOOT. 
Entered this 7th day of June 2011

S/ Michael P. McCuskey
CHIEF US DISTRICT JUDGE

#14    APPENDIX C2         10-CV-2257
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

DECISION BY THE COURT.  This action came to trial or hearing before the Court.  The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff.

Dated June 7, 2011

Pamel E. Robinson
Clerk, US District Court

#15    APPENDIX   D:    response to the district court order of June 7, 2011
THE REPRINT OF DISTRICT COURT ORDER, with formal  constitutional questions/ by their corresponding number in the writ;  applied to descriptions without merit.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

dated June 7, 2011

JAMES F. OSTERBUR                            )
V.                                                )           Case no. USA et al.  Defendants           )       10-CV-2257

ORDER

On March 15, 2011, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and Recommendation (#27) in this case. Judge Bernthal recommended that the Motion to Dismiss (#6) be granted and the pro se Complaint (#1) filed by Plaintiff James F. Osterbur, be dismissed as to all Defendants.  On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se Notice of Appeal (#28).  On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed a pro se Objection (#32) to the Report and Recommendation. On April 11, 2011,  Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objection (#36).  Plaintiff filed a pro se Reply (#37) on April 15, 2011.  On June 6, 2006 (<a date error from the court), this court received the mandate from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals which stated that Plaintiff’s pro se appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Constitutional Questions 1, 2, 3, 4)  The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to review Judge Bernthal’s report and recommendation. (Constitutional Questions 6, 7, 9, 11)
The case is now back before this court.  This court has carefully reviewed Judge Bernthal’s Report and Recommendation (#27), Plaintiff’s pro se Objection (#32), Defendant’s Response (#36), and Plaintiff’s pro se Reply (#37).  This court notes that this review has been complicated by Plaintiff’s rambling and mostly unintelligible filings with this court. (Constitutional Questions 3, 4, 6, 7, 8)  Following this court’s careful and thorough de novo review, this court agrees with and accepts Judge Bernthal’s report and recommendation.  This court completely agrees that Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint demonstrates no coherent claim or request for relief (Constitutional Questions 3, 6, 7, 8,  9, 10, 11, 12) and that the Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) the Report and Recommendation (#27) is accepted by this court.
(2) The Motion to Dismiss (#6) is GRANTED and the Plaintiff’s Complaint (#1) is dismissed as to all Defendants.
(3) this case is terminated.  Accordingly, any remaining pending motions are MOOT.  (Question 1:  how can a constitutional guarantee be moot?  UNLESS treason is involved.)
Entered this 7th day of June 2011

S/ Michael P. McCuskey
CHIEF US DISTRICT JUDGE

 # 16    APPENDIX E:    THE LEGAL STANDARD established in this US supreme court trial;

THE FOUNDATION of the United States of America

the preamble to the US CONSTITUTION:
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.
THERE IS NOTHING UNCLEAR: “let the people decide for themselves/ it is THEIR NATION.”  It is established by this contract made between ourselves:   that we shall choose for ourselves, what we believe establishes our right and our nation by these measures of success.  It is by oath, among the employees most responsible that this should be so: that they DO swear (their job description)::   “IT IS THESE FUNDAMENTALS OF LIFE AND SOCIETY, that they must protect, defend, and obey more than anything else.” 

To further clarify exactly what the people who contracted with themselves/ declared and established a nation:   and hired employees by oath to protect and defend,  chose to include the BILL OF RIGHTS, to assemble our need and establish our rights/ AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE to create what we believe is absolutely intolerable in those who believe they shall rule over us/ INSTEAD of we shall rule ourselves by law..   These documents are easily obtainable, and need not be retyped here.

 #17     APPENDIX F-  BRIEF DISCUSSION the petitioner responds for clarity.  This US supreme court trial.

The foundation of democracy is: that the people shall rule themselves by the equity and truth, of a description that cannot be redesigned by anyone, or misinterpreted by our employees:   as is their own. OUR  preamble to the constitution.  Established as proof: THIS IS our GOVERNMENT/ AND we ARE SOVEREIGN AS OWNERS OVER IT.
The foundation of law is:   that the people shall bind themselves by contract as is called the Constitution of this United States of America. 286 N.W.  844, 846.  So that no delusion should exist regarding the intent to create a society fundamentally governed and paid for by these people who chose to create this society and sustain it for themselves and their own children.  That fact CANNOT be sold, or given away:   it is our right, and our liberty to decide for ourselves.  282 P. 2d. 1084, 1088.
The foundation of society is: that the people have agreed, WITHIN the Bill of Rights, regarding the rules and regulations which are intended to control and describe the critical relationships that are necessary in conjunction with the Amendments of the Constitution; as a clear demonstration of our own desires and demands upon the employees who shall work for us, IN MAKING CERTAIN:    WE ARE FREE, and OUR LIBERTY, shall never be damaged or destroyed. 333 U.S.  507, 509 (the need for understanding/ not change or argument;  here in trial)

The foundation of our guaranteed rights is: that we should never be treated in this way again/ so as to understand what that means: a declaration was described stating what independence did mean to those who did fight and die, risking everything to attain this simple truth:   WE SHALL RULE OURSELVES;    By constitutional law; including redress of grievances..
THERE IS NO ALLOWANCE FOR TRAITORS!  THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY SHALL NOW RULE US INSTEAD OF THE LAW.
Democracy is: WE THE PEOPLE!

#18    APPENDIX G:     REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION

dated June 7, 2011

JAMES F. OSTERBUR                            )
V.                                                )           Case no. USA et al.  Defendants           )       10-CV-2257

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In November 2010, Plaintiff James Osterbur filed a complaint (#1) United States of America, the United States Internal Revenue Service, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, and President Barrack Obama.

Also in November 2010, Defendant United States of America as party Defendant (#6). Plaintiff filed a response(#13).  Subsequently, Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion to Correct Headings.  Clarify Relief Sought By and Representation of the Named Defendants (#24).  This motion, which the Court has granted, clarifies that the present motion to dismiss (#6) is brought by all defendants.  After reviewing the parties’ pleadings and memoranda, this court recommends, pursuant to its authority under 28 U.S.C. ~ 636 (b)(1)(B), that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant United States of America as Party Defendant (#6) be GRANTED.

1.  Background
Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, brings a complaint against the United States, indicating that employees of the United States have failed to do their jobs and uphold the Constitution.  Plaintiff has filed at least two similar claims in recent years (case no. 07-2040; case 10-2055).  He states that he has not paid his 2005 taxes as a way to gain access to the courts to bring this complaint.  Plaintiff repeatedly makes reference to unspecified Constitutional violations. Plaintiff makes unspecified demands for “redress of grievances” and Compliance with the Constitution”.

In its motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that dismissal is warranted for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6), failure to state a concise valid claim for relief in violation of Fed R. Civ. P. 8 (a)(2), failure to establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity as required by law, and failure to vest this court with subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(1)

II.  Standard

The purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to determine the merits of the case. Gibson v. city of Chi.  910 F. 2d 1510, 1520 (7th cir. 1990).  Federal rule of civil procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief”.  Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).  The compliant must give fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.  E.E.O.C.  v.  Concentra Health Servs,, inc.  496  F. 3d.  773, 776-77 (7th cir. 2007).  However, fair notice is not enough by itself; in addition, the allegations must show that it is plausible; rather than merely speculative, that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.  Tamayo v. Blagojevich 526 F. 3d.  1074, 1083 (7th cir. 2008).

When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court is limited to the allegations contained in the pleadings.  Venture Assocs. Corp v.  Zenith Data Sys. Corp 987 F. 2d. 429, 431 (7th cir. 1993).  The court must treat all well-pleaded allegations int eh complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.  McMillan v. Collection Prof’ls. Inc.  455 F. 3d 754, 758 (7th cir. 2006); see Bell Atl. Corp.  V. Twombly, 550 U.S.  544, 556 (requiring plausible grounds for inferences if those inferences are to sustain a complaint).  In considering the plaintiff’s factual allegations, the court should not accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a cause of action or conclusory legal statements.  Brooks v.  Ross, 578 F.  3d 574, 581 (7th cir. 2009).  The application of the notice pleading standard is a context-specific task, in which the height of the pleading requirement is relative to circumstances.  Cooney v. Rooiter, 583 F. 3d.  967, 971 (7th cir. 2009) (citing Ashcroft v.  Iqbal, 129 S. Ct 1937, 1950 (2009).  Furthermore, district courts are required to liberally construe complaints filed by pro se litigants.  Marshall v.  Knight, 445 F. 3d.  965, 969 (7th cir. 2006) (citing Haines v.  Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).

III.  Discussion
A plaintiff need only provide a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”.  FED. R. CIV. P. 8 (a).  However, such statements must be supported by plausible factual allegations.  Tamayo, 526 F. 3d.  At 1083.  When making determinations as to plausibility, a court may rely on judicial experience and common sense.  Cooney, 583 F.  3d.  At 971. In the case of pro se litigants, courts are required to liberally construe their claims.  Marshall, 445 F.  3d at 969.   A court must also be mindful, however, that it should not allow defendants to be subjected to “paranoid pro se litigation...alleging...a vast, encompassing conspiracy”  unless plaintiff meets a “high standard of plausibility”.  Cooney, 583 F. 3d.  971;    see also Walton V. Walker 364 F/ App’x 256, 258 (7th cir.  2010) (unpublished).   Furthermore, a district court is entitled to draw upon its familiarity with a plaintiff’s prior meritless litigation to conclude that a complaint consists only of naked assertions and delusional scenarios.  Neitzke v.  Williams, 490 U.S.  319, 328 (1989); Walton, 364 F.  App’x at 258.

Here, Plaintiffs complaint demonstrates no coherent claim or request for relief.  The following excerpt illustrates Plaintiffs reliance on threadbare recitals of constitutional violations, and demonstrates the court’s difficulty in finding plaintiff’s claims to be plausible: 

WHY DO I OWE THIS MONEY [referring to plaintiffs unpaid taxes]/ when you the employee failed to do your job; and in fact STOLE my money/ STOLE my time in confronting you, and demanding and preparing for court/ STOLE my citizens guaranteed rights, through a courtroom/ DENIED my foundation rights to DUE PROCESS.  Which were by no legal means carried out, within a courtroom.  Threatened every aspect of “the money/ economy” with an out of control banking and wall street gambling industries;  stealing the money from we the people with lies!  THREATENING NOT ONLY MY NATION: BUT MY WORLD WITH THE ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE AND CONTEMPT OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE DO DAMN SMART, they are entitled to play gods/ entitled to literally and without restraint GAMBLE WITH OUR WHOLE PLANET/ THE NATURE WE MUST HAVE TO SURVIVE: THEREBY EVERY LIFE ON THIS WORLD!  (#1.  P 6-7)
The Court concludes that a complaint such as this does not constitute a short and plain statement indicating the plaintiff is entitled to relief.  Even with the liberal construction that this court must employ in considering claims of a pro se litigant, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Defendant makes additional arguments concerning sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction.  To a certain extent, both of these argument presuppose that Plaintiff has otherwise stated a claim for relief.  Specifically, Defendant states that to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint may be construed as seeking an injunction prohibiting the collection of his federal taxes, this court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim.  Because the court has already concluded that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, the court does not reach these arguments.

IV.  Summary

For the reasons stated above, this court recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant United States of America as Party Defendant (#6) be GRANTED.  The court further notes that, in light of Defendants subsequent motion to correct headings (#24), this court recommends dismissing this action as to all defendants.

The parties be advised that any objection to this recommendation must be filed in writing with the clerk within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation.  See 28 U.S.C. ~636 (b)(1).  Failure to object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal.  Video Views Inc   v.  Studio 21, ltd.  797 F.  2d 538, 539 (7th cir. 1986).
Enter this 15th day of March 2011.

#19     APPENDIX H; a short review by the plaintiff;  of district court report and recommendation     10-CV-2257

 DOCKET initial FILING #1 dated 11/15/10  PAGE 1 “THE AFFIRMATION OF CONTENT”; response to; “ court states:  that it should not allow defendants to be subjected to “paranoid pro se litigation...alleging...a vast, encompassing conspiracy”  unless plaintiff meets a “high standard of plausibility”.

dated: 11/15/10                                       trial number: 10‑CV‑2257

RE:   the failure of: (YOU, “the employees” working for the people of this United States),  to provide for/ sustain/ secure/ protect/ establish the demands of the Constitution preamble, its amendments; and the declaration of independence, plus the bill of rights: as is their “job description”.  To create justice (you did not; every thief/ every fraud/ every conspiracy against this people welcomed in)/ retain a separation of church and state as is the religion called evolution (you did not)/  work for world peace with law (you chose weapons of mass destruction instead, threatening us with extinction)/ and a wide variety of other tragic, foolish, disgraceful, and ultimately terrorizing realities that have been created since the wide spread influence of “university takeover” in government, industry, education, and every other form of control possible.
The contract with our employees hired to work for this nation/ this state is:  that by your oath and affirmation, we give you this job; for the clear and absolute purpose of providing the leadership dedicated to producing the results we have agreed to as our constitution and foundation documents of this USA.  That is the purpose of your work/ that is the functional job description for which you are paid. YOU FAILED, and as a consequence to that/ your pay is removed/ your pensions and benefits are confiscated; your job is subject to criminal revue under redress of grievances.  And we the people must protect ourselves, because your work failed us all.

These fundamental trespasses against the United States, this critical treason as is not functionally protecting the citizens or nation or any other true description of what their jobs were intended to be.  The proven conspiracy of the court, and other  hierarchy in government to refuse:  “first amendment redress of grievances” to the people, as is our law.  Our guaranteed right as citizens of this USA.  The redistribution of our money: STOLEN with debts, traps, penalties, and control of every resource and every job by the university diploma.  Stolen with bonds and inflated dollars used with endless temptation, manipulation, propaganda, and controls intended:   to enslave, entrap, and steal our property as citizens of this USA.
THE REALITY IS,     We the people OWE THEM NOTHING! That means “taxes are NOT due”/ because the foundations of this nation upon which taxes are demanded: WERE CORRUPTED, CONTAMINATED WITH GREED, DISRUPTED WITH FAILURE, DESTROYED WITH THREATS: and rearranged against this people, instead of used as their defense.  That is treason.

Or more specifically, the claim for taxes (pay us money) has been proven false!   YOU DID NOT EARN THE MONEY!  YOU DID NOT DO THE JOB YOU WERE HIRED TO DO!  Thereby you are owed your day in court instead.
YOU FAILED TO PROTECT OUR MONEY!  YOU LIED CONTINUALLY ABOUT DEBTS/ AND DO NOT PROVIDE A TRUE AND ACCURATE ACCOUNTING TO THE PEOPLE AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS.  YOU THREATEN NOT ONLY THIS NATION but THIS WORLD; WITH the national ignition facility, and other university experiments from which we CANNOT recover/ when their theories are proven wrong.  YOU HAVE used the military, for less than honorable intention/ rather than law, justice, and peace; the term “shock and awe” was created to instill fear. That is an illegal action, against the constitution itself.

 #20      APPENDIX   I :   plaintiff initial  FILING #1, dated 11/15/10 :    10-CV-2257 excerpt.
from report and recommendation;

Court states: “  ...that a complaint consists only of naked assertions and delusional scenarios.”
The response too:

   FIRST AMENDMENT REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.   In true open court, where critical investigation of our reality: past, present, and future exists/ the examination of all pertinent facts to our survival and threats;  shall exist by the evidence; and be defended by true punishment or death/ and a literal decision that is functionally educated, and fundamentally established by the fabric of a nation,  designed to be:     WE THE PEOPLE,    exists.

     WHEREIN, with this information in truth:   WE THE PEOPLE SHALL then:   ADJUST, CHANGE, AND DEFEND THIS NATION FOR OURSELVES.  AS IS OUR RIGHT, because WE ARE THE OWNERS HERE!

#21     APPENDIX  I, 2 : plaintiff initial dated 11/15/10 FILING #1      10-CV-2257   SUBSTANCE DOCKET
   court states: “establish a valid waiver of sovereign immunity as required by law, and failure to vest this court with subject matter jurisdiction”

That shall NOT continue;   unless we the people decide it shall be so.  OUR LIVES cannot be threatened by the terrorists or traitors:   we hired as employees, or the institutions/ universities/ military/ or industries we allow.   That is NOT what we agreed to as the nation called this United States of America.

IT IS PAST TIME:   TO ESTABLISH BY LAW AND WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL limits on that LAW;   A NEW AND DIFFERENT METHOD OF GOVERNING OURSELVES: shall come.
RETURNING to the demands of our founding documents; THESE ARE, the agreements between the people themselves: yes it is worth the price to do this!  Which means they are literally the government.  Because this is what we demand from our employees, from our nation, for ourselves. Specifically the preamble, and amendments of this US constitution/ the declaration of  independence/ and the bill of rights as written.

  WE ARE THE INTERPRETERS OF FACT, with regard to these documents/ NO employee shall interpret them for us.  OUR NATION/ not yours as rulers;   your nation, as an equal per citizen/ one vote.   Our redress to prove our reality called WE THE PEOPLE.

#22     APPENDIX I, 3:   “THE DEMAND ON THE COURT”:   DOCKET FILING #1 dated 11/ 15/ 10    10-CV-2257
report and recommendation
     court states “Plaintiff makes unspecified demands for “redress of grievances” and Compliance with the Constitution”. My response:

The demand on this courtroom is REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES/ according to the first amendment of the US constitution: as we the people interpret it to be.  Nothing more/ but nothing less, or there shall be no taxes paid.

 #23    APPENDIX I, 4  :    THE ISSUANCE OF “subject matter” as is fitting for a common citizen to do/ in the words and elements of life that are realistic for him.  The foundation for every pro se defense: is listen to my complaint, and how it causes me grief/ because that, is why I am here. 342 F.  Supp.  1048, 1062 (see appendix #24).
 response too. Case 10-2257 report and recommendations.  The court selects:

WHY DO I OWE THIS MONEY [referring to plaintiffs unpaid taxes]/ when you the employee failed to do your job; and in fact STOLE my money/ STOLE my time in confronting you, and demanding and preparing for court/ STOLE my citizens guaranteed rights, through a courtroom/ DENIED my foundation rights to DUE PROCESS.  Which were by no legal means carried out, within a courtroom.  Threatened every aspect of “the money/ economy” with an out of control banking and wall street gambling industries;  stealing the money from we the people with lies!  THREATENING NOT ONLY MY NATION: BUT MY WORLD WITH THE ABSOLUTE ARROGANCE AND CONTEMPT OF PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE DO DAMN SMART, they are entitled to play gods/ entitled to literally and without restraint GAMBLE WITH OUR WHOLE PLANET/ THE NATURE WE MUST HAVE TO SURVIVE: THEREBY EVERY LIFE ON THIS WORLD!  (#1.  P 6-7)           The Court concludes that a complaint such as this does not constitute a short and plain statement indicating the plaintiff is entitled to relief. 

#24     APPENDIX J;   PLAINTIFF BRIEF INTRODUCTION from the writ of this supreme court case:  establishing : the purpose or defining of      THE QUESTION PRESENTED FIRST:       for the plaintiff.    For clarity.

“that I am entitled to a judgment, on the law presented/ NOT a mock trial, constructed by the judiciary in contempt of the law, the nation, and this people.”     9 N.Y.S.  275

The foundation of a complaint against these defendants is established by a reliance upon their own oath of office to retain the job for which they are employed:   simplified it is “protect/ defend/ and obey the constitution of this USA;  and do nothing to harm or threaten its citizens.”  140 P.2d.  335, 338.
We are threatened/ we are harmed/ we are disrespected as a democracy by the refusal to honor redress of grievances, we are bankrupted by our employees.  That is the subject matter of this complaint.  That is what the court finds incomprehensible. 378 U.S. 108

#25     APPENDIX K:   PLAINTIFF BRIEF INTRODUCTION:   from the writ, of this supreme court trial.    THE QUESTION PRESENTED 1:           FOR THE PEOPLE,   for clarity

 The proper and real relief sought as is plainly identified in the filings is REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES:   or more simply “let the people decide for themselves based upon the evidence of accountability in a courtroom of law; so as to remove the lies/ and punish the liar”. To form a last line of defense for this nation.  A guaranteed right of this people, to each and every citizen.  Refused by the court.  160 P.  2d.  37, 39.

#26     APPENDIX L;     PLAINTIFF BRIEF INTRODUCTION:   from the writ, of this supreme court trial.

        QUESTION PRESENTED 2: for the people FOR CLARITY.

 The little rant above    (#1.  P 6-7)   was required:   because like other cases current[US federal/ central district for IL 10-2277 , (a case demanding the many threats which can destroy us all MUST be investigated)  & 11-2023 (a case demanding “liberty and justice for all”)] and past state of IL champaign county court [10- MR-766 ( a case demanding the policing agencies of IL,  MUST protect the citizens)]:    DOES PROVE:  if the court cannot win, it will refuse to answer/ or use derogatory terms to dismiss; as is proven by this plaintiff. THEY discard and disgrace the constitution itself.  THERE ARE many such cases.  The subject matter is:    Let democracy be first/ let the people be served by the judiciary.  Give them their legal right called redress of grievances.  397 U.S.  254, 262-263.

#27     APPENDIX   M - DOCKET EXCERPTS FROM APPEALS    Case  11-1639 district report and recommendation 2257 reviewed.

FROM PLAINTIFF INITIAL FILING, starting page one:  THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257
dated: March 18, 2011
Report and recommendations established 3/15/11.
“The court recommends dismissing this action as to all defendants.”
article 3: discussion:   the purpose of a courtroom is JUSTICE, through the laws democracy provides for that purpose and desire. There is no power in the judiciary to claim otherwise/ NO possibility a judge or group of judges is above the law.  There is no authority to misconstrue, or misinterpret our intent: that this democracy shall be: OF THE PEOPLE/ BY THE PEOPLE/ AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

Dismissed for lack of a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief.  Refers too “...a count must also be mindful, however, that it should not allow defendants to be subjected to “paranoid pro se litigation....alleging...a vast encompassing conspiracy”.    Added is ....”plaintiff’s merit‑less litigation to conclude that a complaint consists of naked assertions and delusional scenarios.

 In witness thereof: the judge uses the following, as sufficient for dismissal: thereby meeting not the basis or purpose of a courtroom in this USA.

IN THIS APPEAL: WE WILL EXAMINE WHAT IS TRUE?
THE CONSPIRACY TO DENY DEMOCRACY, to destroy or conspire against the first, fourth,  seventh, & fourteenth amendments to this US CONSTITUTION.
We begin:
1.  That my claim in this trial and others is very simply the law must be obeyed by the courtroom of this america and this state of IL.  Throughout this trial, my only real demand is the judge MUST obey the law; because the constitution demands it/ rather than me.  I merely request my guaranteed rights.  The judge fails, and denies the constitution.

2.  That the law, being the first amendment of the US Constitution grants the guaranteed inherent right to LEGAL redress of grievances for the people.  And all options and needs to accomplish that redress have been established for which the court can find no complaint or denial.  There is no greater subject merit in or of or about/ a government called “of the people/ by the people/ and for the people” .  The judge fails, and is attributed to the call and cause of rebellion against the people and their government which is our agreement to be a democracy.

3.  This judge states: background;   my complaint is the USA through its courts; “that employees of the US have failed to do their jobs, and uphold the constitution.”  Creating the question is that not short and concise?  Does that not merit a claim of relief from the paid to do their job;   representatives of this US entity,  loosely called “government”.  Without doubt it does.  The judge fails; as did so many others each of which were  tested in this matter of redress of grievances.  And have established without doubt that the judiciary has indeed created and upheld a conspiracy against this law, called redress of grievance; against the constitution of this USA.  That means traitor, one and all.
4.  In every courtroom, they demand that I must have a personal issue to bring before the court/ not merely a claim for my legal guaranteed rights.  Which does establish a cause for why taxes are not paid, and the assertion: I cannot enter court without a personal complaint regarding far less greater issues than life/ freedom/ liberty/ truth/ justice/ fair play/ equality/ guaranteed rights/ law/ or any other definition of value as has been brought before the courtrooms of this USA and state of IL. The fault is within the judiciary it is not mine/ the judge fails.

5.  The judge argues; background page 2:   “Plaintiff repeatedly makes reference to unspecified constitutional violations.  Plaintiff makes unspecified demands for “redress of grievances” and compliance with the constitution”.   AN OUTRIGHT LIE! The court is reminded:    SHOULD I NOT!  Again what do you not understand about constitutional guarantees/ what is unclear about democracy and the demand to be heard by a jury of my peers as the US amendment 7 guarantees to me/ the 14th amendment guarantees to me/ and the 4th amendment applies to my property/ or the first amendment to the values I hold as dear or sacred.  How is it I should not remind you of the duties applied to your job, as our employee in the preamble of the US constitution/ or fail to remind you of the words in either the bill of rights or the declaration of independence; as did build us this nation.  We built it for democracy/ NOT for your dictatorship and denial of our rights.  The judge fails, and aligns himself with treason: an act of betrayal to this people.

6.  The defendant argues: that a law lesser than the constitution of this USA should hold greater value than the constitution itself.  He is a liar!  The defendant argues: “failure to state a concise valid claim for relief...”  However the issues of money and debt within this USA in and around this day are obvious and apparent to every citizen/ and need NO further statutory evidence; the public knows, and so does the court.  Thereby to call for a direct, real, absolutely truthful accounting from all assets and liabilities created or allowed by our representatives and employees of this people is absolutely a claim for relief which the defendant and this judge do understand.  The defendant and judge conspire/ and do lie together in the collusion of an intent to deny the sovereign right of owners.  WE THE PEOPLE are THE OWNERS here.  As has been plainly and securely stated and proven true.  The judge seeks to overwhelm us: as a means of destroying democracy/ an act of a traitor, a decision of a fool.   The defendant suggests “that our employees are sovereign or more specifically like kings or dictators” and there is nothing we can do about anything/ cause they own our lives.  That is rebellion/ that is an intent to overthrow our government of the people/ by the people/ and for the people.  Or more correctly the words of a traitor.  The defendant suggests that there is no subject matter jurisdiction here:   the real issue here is “that are lives, our future, our dignity, our respect, our money, as a nation of people living in democracy has been taken from us/ by employees who refuse to believe we are the owners/ not them”.   Therefore I say to the court and bring trial to establish among the people by their own decision:   the question SHOULD WE INVESTIGATE OUR EMPLOYEES, AND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE?  Or should we not.  That requires a courtroom, according to redress of grievances our truth as a democracy called WE THE PEOPLE.   Prove me wrong.

7.  The judge states, a standard:   his claim is “the purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits of the case.”   Which means:   no plaintiff has a right to trial or jury as the constitution guarantees UNLESS the judge decides “as a god” over trial; that he will or will not allow said trial.  His assertion is MERITS (or the value;  to life, nation, environment, etc, to be decided in a trial) DON’T MATTER.   That is a very serious offense/ regardless the failure of any other court.  It means: the judiciary has stolen our juries from us/ has stolen, raped, and ravaged the constitutional demands of every amendment and placed themselves as gods or dictators over us.  Instead of governed by law/ we are governed by the whim of a judge here, in those few words.  They, the judiciary and other leaders in America: HAVE rebelled against us/ they overran us all/ and they raped the very essence of democracy, because without our guaranteed legal say in a courtroom governed by law itself.   Our nation being ruled by law, as a democracy, meaning WE THE PEOPLE rule ourselves.  We become nothing more than slaves, oppressed by dictators, and abused by traitors.  The judge attacks, and attempts to kill the legal right of every citizen with his whim, or opinion as is consistent with his words.  As there is no reference to law/ there is no acceptance of constitutional authority/ and no discipline for the nation, the people, the law, or justice.  He conspires to assassinate, he conceives of a world where the doors and the robe can hide him from life.  Is that not the ways of a thief.

Plaintiff response to standard
THE TRUE STANDARD IS JUSTICE!  Nothing less than truth will do.

This demand in this trial for a redress trial, whereby all the people shall decide if they demand accountability and the right of their own rule as WE THE PEOPLE.  Is more than plausible/ it is the law.  The judiciary is not entitled to an opinion here/ it is forced by law, to accept its duty; or be proven in desertion of that duty and forced to accept the consequences.

#28     APPENDIX M : DOCKET REPLY FOR DE NOVO TRIAL 11-1639

   APPELLATE CASE #    11‑1639

THE CASE APPEALED:   10‑2257          Judge David G. Bernthal;   presiding.
US district court for the central district of IL/ Urbana div.

Titled:   the legal determination of constitutionally guaranteed: first amendment  redress law!

THE REVIEW OF DEMOCRACY IN THIS APPEAL FOR JUSTICE: or more simply, “do we the people own this nation or not”?

Plaintiffs response:   DE NOVO April 11, 2011

The foundation of every judicial court/ appellate court in this nation called AMERICA:   is that in terms of subject matter, these employees of government called the judiciary/  shall represent and obey the constitution of this United States of America as written.  The legal right of every citizen established:  as authorized and created within the constitution of this USA.  That is the job of every judge.

That is a foundation of law, a fact of sworn oath, and a description of duty that does not expand unto discretion.  The judge does not decide/ the constitution does!  This is the leniency,  afforded any judge in this nation; “great or small”.  Your job is to adhere to, and protect the constitution of our government/ by its own terms called:   WE THE PEOPLE!  Simple as that.

Redress of grievances according to the first amendment of the constitution IS A PART OF THAT LAW/ A PART OF YOUR SWORN OATH TO OBEY, DEFEND,  AND PROTECT.   It is not a political right/ it is a legal right guaranteed to each and every citizen in this nation: whether they be “great or small”/ same for all.  A legal right to demand that when OUR GOVERNMENT/ NOT your government as employees for we the people.  But our government; when our employees create: the evidences/ the realities of failure/ the potential fraud and deceit so distinctly visible at this time in the history of this nation, that NONE of the people themselves doubts:   WE ARE IN TROUBLE HERE.  As is this day and time.  Unless you wish to prove the vast majority of people believe all is fine, and we the people need, nor wish to do nothing to save ourselves from what is clearly complete financial collapse.  To save ourselves from “the communist takeover” that is government today: identified in the truth that a $3.8 trillion dollar federal budget, DOES IN FACT establish “our leaders” intend/ are spending/  and expect to spend $38,000.00 per each one of one hundred million people: one in three of us in this year 2011 alone.   Or more simply our “leaders” have discarded:   let the people choose for themselves/ as is democracy.  Establishing instead:  “they KNOW BETTER than me, or us all”.  Thereby the few determine everything important/ and the people “eat their shit”.  Me included as my life has been altered forever, by the fact that not only does the leadership in this government prove to be too inept to identify the problem that this is no longer a democracy.  But insist upon threatening my life, and every life on this planet with such things as the gamble that is bringing the same fire as is on the sun here to this earth.  Can’t control it, and we are dead/ as a planet and a world.  That is a very significant standing in fact before this court.  The employees of this my government: have elected/ provided tax dollars/ and all aspects of support to those people who are gambling with my life by such experiments.  And gambling with my country by changing it behind our backs: with the fraud that is communism “the few decide/ and the people can be slaves”.  I am not happy being your slave.  I am very “upset” at my life/ my nature/ my world; everything including  my planet being nothing more to the “leadership of this nation” than a coin, in a casino wherein IF YOUR WRONG/ we all die.  Prove to me that it is impossible “the same fire as is on the sun cannot be established here on earth in this machine”.  You cannot, because theory is not proof.  Prove to me that you can control the same fire as is on the sun here on earth; when that fire burns “atomic bonds as fuel”/ and thereby everything here is fuel; IT CANNOT be put out.  And it will eject this atmosphere on earth in less than two weeks.  Because the flames on the sun are estimated to be “millions of miles high”.  How is that NOT my legal concern.  HOW MUST I WAIT, until this is proven to be, the end of life on earth.

#29     APPENDIX   O:   SUMMARY REVIEW GIVEN IN 2257; establishing “plain and simple”.
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION

I SEEK REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, AS IS GUARANTEED TO ME, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.  Your job is to provide that legal right/ and you have NO legal opportunity to refuse.  Refusal is to deny the US CONSTITUTION rules this land/ and you are its employees.  The demand to disobey the law/ particularly the constitutional guarantees of a citizen herein:      CONSTITUTES A WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CRIMINAL ACT    Of making this US constitution invalid/ making traitorous actions in defiance of said constitution/ and adhering to the enemy:  which are those who try to defeat DEMOCRACY. 
Or more simply:    WE THE PEOPLE, own this land/ this nation/ and WE ARE “this government, in connection with our founding documents.”   You, are not the government/ you are an employee assigned to obey the law, support the constitution and defend it.  The failure to do that very thing has criminal consequences.  The intent to defeat the democracy of this USA and war against it as an enemy HAS consequences.  The reality of law is very simple: either you do obey it as written/ or you deny the law and disobey your oath of office as is sworn; and thereby does come with consequences for you.

#30     APPENDIX   O2 :   A CONCISE AND VALID CLAIM FOR RELIEF
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION

The utter failure that is US government today, clearly proven throughout the land/ clearly and distinctly proven by the debt load, propaganda instead of as the constitution demands TRUE AND REAL accounting for the nation; provided to the public: failed/   clear and distinct failure in protecting the children from criminal conduct, as their elders not only steal their money, but force them into absolute poverty by stripping every resource, and destroying every opportunity the future could have; because of selfishness and greed/ failed because we stand only minutes away from complete extinction by weapons of mass destruction; and the refusal to apply world law instead/ failed because the education system has proven tragic for too many/ failed because healthcare has become simple extortion/ failed because as is proven in this court: THE LAW, is not obeyed without a fight even in federal court/ failed because unemployment is too high/ failed because YOU do not RESPECT DEMOCRACY, but the employees believe they can be rulers, instead of we the people.  There are many more, including threats of extinction that are specific to ending this world.  Religion has taken over government, the reality of evolution (proven nothing), nothing more or less. Failed to protect the future.  Failed to protect the people from weapons they cannot survive.  Failed to provide redress to this date/ failed to protect the press (lost to a handful, with greed as their only decision)/ failed to protect the people that they be secured in their persons, houses, etc; “YOU, the employees, MADE THE MONEY BAD/ YOU SUPPORTED pathetic practice in banking and financial aspects of society”. Failed to protect my right of trial/ failed to protect the value of DEMOCRACY to me, and to us; with endless rhetoric and lies.  Failed by supreme court case 08‑1339 being denied by a clerk/ not a judge; which is conspiratorial treason, the direct attempt to overrule the constitution and strip from the people their democracy.  Lawyer/ Judge or not, you cannot pick and choose which law you will obey/ you will obey them, or be found guilty “an enemy of this nation”.  And it is up to the policing departments of this nation to apply the same demonstrations of power to you, as they do to us.  Failed, because your policies have made it impossible for some to avoid slavery and prostitution just to survive.  Failed because due process is a joke among the judiciary, that they believe, can simply be avoided with LIES, like “failure to state a valid claim for relief”.

#31     APPENDIX   O3 :  A VALID WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION

WE THE PEOPLE, ARE THIS GOVERNMENT!  You the employees are not.  WE THE PEOPLE ARE DUE, THE PROCESS OF LEGAL REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THIS US CONSTITUTION, you have no say.  It is the law.  This democratic action rests upon the certainty:   that we have not only a right/ but a duty to defend our nation as we see fit.  That right exists as the legal remedy to take our employees to court and examine their work/ establish the change we need to have/ and determine our future for ourselves.  WE ARE THE OWNERS/ WE ARE THE DEMOCRACY/ AND WE , within the confines of constitutional law; do represent not only our nation, but its law, and that enforcement of law ourselves.   WE ARE THE JUDGE, in terms of redress of grievances/ because we are the owners coming to examine and decide what is the truth and reality of what these people have done to us, and in our name.  It is our guaranteed and inherent right of power, as we the people.  Because it is OUR NATION.  OUR DEMOCRACY.  OUR LAW!

#32     APPENDIX   O4 :  
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:

VALID CAUSE OF ACTION

THIS IS a democratic action provided by the constitution of this UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  The law of first amendment rights providing for the legal remedy of failure by our employees/ and the opportunity to intercede prior to even greater damage being done.  That means my legal right to inquire of this state or county:   IF THEY DO, OR DO NOT BELIEVE, it is absolutely necessary to defend this nation and ourselves by demanding an accounting, and DIRECT control of government as the law allows through this court.  IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, provided by the constitution.  It is a democratic action, which means it is my right to ask of “we the people” here/ IF THEY TOO believe it is necessary and valid to ask of the others by simple democratic due process.  The act of governing ourselves, by taking responsibility for the future from those who did not protect us;   and choosing for ourselves a new path/ defending ourselves from those whose actions are traitorous.  Because this is NOT distinctly the REDRESS TRIAL ITSELF/   BUT MERELY, THE DEMAND BY LAW, TO ENFORCE THE FIRST AMENDMENT REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, and provide the beginning of trial.  Every court in the land is entitled and instructed and demanded:   TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.  This is not national redress trial itself.   This is the beginning of redress, the foundation of democracy whereby the people themselves vote, to participate as they see fit within the laws and demands of democracy itself.  It is well within the jurisdictional guidelines of this court/ it is our guaranteed and inherent right, as citizens of this nation.  As WE THE PEOPLE.

Further demand is created, through this initial trial to establish the foundations upon which those who choose to participate by forcing trial: through the refusal to pay taxes UNTIL that law is granted/ until trial has indeed begun.  There is no intent to say, we or I shall not pay the tax.  RATHER AS IS THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY; our primary weapon against employees who refuse to obey our laws, by not enforcing redress/ is to remove their money.  The filing of taxes remains/ BUT THE PENALTY AND INTEREST associated with working for our democracy, through justice and fair legitimate actions;   are demanded to be proven.  WHAT do you intend to do/ so that we all may know!

 #33     APPENDIX O5 :  SUMMARY
dated: 12/3/10    trial number: 10‑2257 titled:
VALID CAUSE OF ACTION

Jurisdiction is proven and without doubt.
________________________________________________

    APPENDIX P:   IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM:  CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION, AND CORRUPTION. ________________________________

 #34 APPENDIX   P : DOCKETED,   US SUPREME COURT   08-1339

ADDED IN AS PROOF OF “REDRESS” DENIAL, BY THE JUDICIARY; from the top down. Collusion/ conspiracy/ corruption; against redress, a guaranteed right.
        No.
_______08-1339_

In The
SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES

                       James Frank Osterbur ,
                       petitioner
V.
The United States of America &
The State of Illinois
                      Respondent

 On petition for a writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th circuit, Chicago IL

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

petitioner files pro se, as a citizen both of IL and this USA

                       James Frank Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 6187

                           i

          QUESTION PRESENTED
The first amendment to the US constitution states and gives the following legal right:   “....or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. “

As there can be NO DOUBT, or legal argument as to the condition of this USA in terms of “grievances” as to how our employees both of state and nation have failed to protect our lives, failed to protect our money, have created numerous threats that could lead to our extinction as a nation, world, or all life on earth.  The critical question examined within the various courts of law that have preceded this case are all focused on the vary same issue.   WE THE PEOPLE,   MUST HAVE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ABOUT OUR SITUATION IN BOTH STATE AND NATION, that we may truly know what is important for us to address, what is necessary for us to protect for ourselves, and our future, and our children’s future.   And our world.   Because it is clear, the leaders of this nation, OUR EMPLOYEES of government, who are assigned to do, “according to the intent and mandate of this US and state constitution” have failed.  They lack clarity, they discard honor, they despise honesty, and they cannot be trusted.  Therefore we this nation and this state, MUST have a redress of grievances to protect ourselves from further damage by people who do not know what they are doing/ don’t care about what they are doing/ or are so corrupt in what they are doing, that criminal charges must occur. Therefore the question to the court is: WILL YOU HONOR, THE FIRST AMENDMENT: REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS  NATION?

DENIED

# 35        APPENDIX P 2   : 09-LM- 1414   Conspiracy to deny redress of grievances;   A medical billing case, relying on contractual law.
 CONSPIRACY TO DENY REDRESS, “not real”.
Champaign county court;   judge chase lenhard
filing November 5, 2009 excerpt
James osterbur v.  Provena Covenant medical

“...The legal question extends to that when this country is in need or crisis, the first amendment of the US constitution provides the law, from which all employees called government shall comly: or be recognized as criminal.  That law for: WE THE PEOPLE, is redress of grievances/ the guaranteed legal right of the people & the legal demand made upon the government employee; to obey the law.
Order of the court: judge leonhard 2/ 16/ 2010
“Excerpt: this case is before the court on the motion of defendant, Provena Covenant medical center.....be dismissed for the reasons......”cases such as these are not uncommon.  They often present a blinding blizzard of chaff.  They also at times present a court with the question of whether, and to what extent, a court might permit pursuit of the possibility that grains of colorable claim might be blowing in the wind.  Plaintiff’s complaint is at once prolix and neological.  Indeed, with due respect to plaintiff, the complaint is simply incomprehensible from a legal standpoint.
MOTION for arrest of judgment by plaintiff;  retried by judge Difanis;   order 8/23/2010 oral motion of defendant to dismiss is allowed, order dismissed with prejudice.

#36     APPENDIX   P 3 :   from the initial filing page one    The preceding trial 10-2055, which then became appeals 10-2146 excerpt CORRUPTION. COLLUSION, CONSPIRACY

In UNITED STATES Federal Court
For the central district of the State of IL
URBANA, IL 61801
dated 3/9/10

JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR

VS

STATE OF IL, as represented by the governor for IL
Mr. Patrick Quinn   207 state house,   Springfield IL 62706
(because this is the state, and the judiciary, wherein trial began)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al.
As represented by the solicitor general office USA

JUDGE CHASE LEONHARD
Champaign county courthouse , for the state of IL
101 E Main
Urbana IL 61801

 RE: the eviction of due process, by a corrupt and invasive court.  The failure of amendment 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15,  & 26; to provide for and protect the citizens of this USA. Because, tyranny in the court/ IS NOT JUSTICE.  THE LAW decides a trial, “NOT, just because the judge says so”.  I demand due process, and the law, NOT the whim or opinion of a judge, outside the realm of justice. As would be fundamental to the needs and parameters of this entire case; through constitutional guarantees & law.   Not, a game.

A: MAKE THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, obey the first amendment redress of grievances in this Champaign county courtroom. Return the case 09 LM 1414 to court (a different judge)/ and require them to let it proceed to its purpose and demand for law.

B: Establish the foundation of DUE PROCESS, as it pertains to first amendment law/   by describing exactly what the judge must understand, by the description of his job and his oath.

C:   CLEAN THE COURT system of America:    By review of reality, in terms of    “HOW a citizen of this nation and this state is treated, in court/ without the aid or education or money applicable to lawyers. And demand JUSTICE, for all.  The court has no authority beyond the law/ but must act within the demand of law; and in particular constitutional law, where no real interpretation of first amendment legal rights, can exclude or deny redress for the people.

This is a clear federal question jurisdiction case/ with appropriate pendant jurisdiction issues

ORDER OF THE COURT 5/ 5/ 2010 10-2055
“...Osterbur also contends that the state of IL should be forced to obey the first amendment right of redress of grievances....”
THIS CASE IS TERMINATED.  Harold A. Baker. Judge

#37     APPENDIX P4  ; 10-2055 then became FEDERAL appeals 7TH circuit:  10-2146 order of the court       CORRUPTION AND CONSPIRACY.
may 10, 2010
Circuit rule 3 (b) empowers the clerk to dismiss an appeal if the docket fee is not paid within fourteen (14) days of the docketing of the appeal.  This appeal was docketed on May 10, 2010.  The District court has indicated that as of May 10, 2010, the docket fee has not been paid.  Depending on your situation, you should: 
1.  Pay the required $450.00 docketing fee PLUS the $5.00 notice of appeal filing fee to the district court clerk, if you have not already done so. The court of appeals cannot accept this fee. You should keep a copy of the receipt for your records.

2.  File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the district....

[I CANNOT currently find the filing stating without doubt that I did pay the court:   (THEY DON’T GIVE YOU A CASE NUMBER UNTIL YOU DO).  the pitiful cash register receipt given to me rubbed the ink away in my billfold.  The local FBI office refused to do anything.]

#38     APPENDIX P 6  : 10-2146         REALITY  “ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION”
PLAINTIFF circuit rule 3 (c) docketing statement dated 6/1/2010
“Cases 94-2060 & 9402001.  Wherein the judges of this 7th circuit federal appeals court: “pick a facetious, or more correctly factitious lie: choosing to discard the case with a complete fabrication representing Christmas decoration on a government property”. When absolutely nothing religious/ nothing about Christmas/ nothing about government property or any other facet of that lie actually existed.  Not in interpretation/ not in actual fact/ not in deliberation/ not in the slightest conformity or evidence!  AN ABSOLUTE LIE”

June 3, 2010   10-2146
this cause, docketed on May 10, 2010 is DISMISSED for failure to timely pay the required docketing fee, pursuant to Circuit Rule 3 (b) final order w mandate

#39     APPENDIX   P7;    From the initial filing of trial  07-2040      first two pages. REFINING WHY this is not tax evasion or the intent to claim “no tax”.   The functional assertion: I am promised, by this government:   better than this!
         Establishing the “pro se way”/ as any other citizen might.  115 A.  484, 486   185 A.  401.  ART 1 SECTION 10   US CONSTITUTION

In the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
201 S. VINE ST URBANA, IL 61801
http://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/
case # 07- 2040
JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
V
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
THE UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

DATED: 2/ 16/ 07

1. IN BRIEF: as has been provided under the collection appeal rights : quote, yu may contest the CDP decision in the tax court or an US district court as appropriate. Page 1. As this is not a matter of collection per se/ I will fully pay the amount in question/ it is not an issue, and I have saved the money for the purpose, it is in waiting for the critical descriptions of an opportunity to understand the legitimate scope of arbitrary powers versus the rights of the people to information and protection under the powers of the constitution itself. That is the fundamental trial for the legal right to petition the government under the first amendment of the constitution: the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Because this is as indicated below, represented by various and absolutely critical consequences of life or death to the citizens of the nation/ or the nation itself: the court is bound by its duty to the nation under article 3 section 2. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution..... As a soldier is sworn to uphold his or her duty, whether the battle is desired or not/ so to is the court, and its employee who acts as judge, administering the purpose and intent of the constitution itself. For that is its purpose, and that is its power, "to DO as the people have instructed the court to do". To protect and defend the citizen, and the nation. This cannot be done in hiding. The bill of rights asserts and informs simply: quote "a declaration of rights made by the representatives.......assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.1. Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.2. Section 2. That all power is vested in and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.3. Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and infeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.4. Section 4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; .......

5. Given the scope and substance of these declared ideals and representative conceptions of what and how the United States Of America government is suppose to work, and their assigned duties from which the nation itself was born; we find the truth of why people died to support, create, and defend this nation. AND we also find the descriptions of the work intended to be done/ the honor expected from our representatives, and the purpose of the nation itself.6. Added to these descriptions are the summary expectations for the government of the United States of America; in the prelude and formal description of how the nation itself should be understood, and what our representatives are intended to do for us. You will note; nothing about these words are established as "a description of representatives"/ BUT rather exist as the words of the people themselves/ telling the representatives of that day and the present exactly what is expected from them. Those words are established in the constitution as:7. THE FOUNDATION8. 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.
2. Fundamentally describing, by my words and expectations1.3. THE PROMISE1. That freedom shall be our truth, and life will be our way. Defined by the existence of our own voices, we are the reality of our purpose & the essence of life's desire. TO BE, a nation of equal's/ a nation designed by the hope of independence/ a nation where liberty believes in me, each one. From hope & life, and purpose; our intent is happiness for all. From discipline & life & duty, our demand is repeated in the very simple words: let justice be for me/ for us! From respect, the essence of responsibility and the destiny of fair play; WE THE PEOPLE, becomes a pledge to each other, that the value of our lives, & the treasure that is our future.
4. Clearly viewed by the relationship of evidence that exists.