CASE MANAGEMENT IS: the determination of what is fair and legitimate in trial/ what can and is expected, and thereby prepared for.

In this case 09LM1414
OSTERBUR V. PROVENA AND DOCTOR
Dated 2/19/10

there are four parameters to be dealt with

1.  The first establishes the argument: the plaintiff Osterbur contends:   “I went into the emergency room of Provena hospital/ and SPECIFICALLY ASKED;   do you have anything less than an emergency room visit by which I can see a doctor”.  The receptionist said:   yes we do, its called “fast track”/ and then would you like to see a doctor; at which time I then said yes I do.  
The entire case is based upon whether this did or did not happen/ and the assertion by this plaintiff:   I asked for and was told a “anything less than an emergency room visit; YES WE DO”.    Or more simply;   I was in effect baited and switched! 
Therefore the only argument to be defined in court is determined by the witness at the reception desk/ and if this is to be contended:   I will call her as a witness/ and there were two women working along the back wall directly behind this receptionist/ and one working beside her, during this conversation.  All of which are likely to be witnesses as they were within listening range, and I believe heard that conversation.   If the defendant wishes to pursue or is willing to state the witness does accept this conversation occurred.  A simple statement prepared as such is sufficient for me/ so long as it is uncontested in court.  If she does not accept this conversation occurred then each witness that was there, shall be called to stand and much be subpoenaed. 
The lawyers for the defense shall submit their billing in advance as to this trial;   because I sue for whatever it is they would charge to me, should I lose.  And the jury should and must know the details, as this is strictly a billing issue, and not more complicated than that.  It is fair to understand the accounting/ PRIOR to making a decision.  As was my right prior to an emergency room billing.

2.  The doctor charges for a personal visit/ which is commonly included in any other form of   “Fast track” hospital visit/ and is not allowed to charge: work it out with your hospital/ should I win.  If this is not accepted, within the terms of “winning this case” / then I will be calling the hospital staff, that I returned to complain of about being left with an ass full of grease/ not a wipe in sight/ and being unaware then the material on my clothes:    It is harassment, at a minimum, and we will be in court further about this matter/ if you don’t back away.    Should I lose, there will be an extended case regarding harassment and further charges to come;   as such the doctor must commit to one way or the other/ or the hospital staff must be subpoenaed as witness that I did so “return to complain”.  A written and signed statement is enough, so long as both sides agree it is valid in a court of law.

3.  The judge is asked, and I received standing in court regarding the matter of    DUE PROCESS!  And he is commanded to establish the law:    AM I ENTITLED to a judge’s signature, in any docketed and paid for case in this nation/   OR MORE CLEARLY, is a clerk of the court, in any court entitled to dismiss a case without proof of a judges signature to the plaintiff.  It is a matter of law, inherent and guaranteed rights by the Constitution of the United States of America.

4.   In the matter of redress of grievances according to the first amendment of the US CONSTITUTION;   the need for redress, an incontestable reality in this day and time.  The debate over healthcare reform and the need for financial and real relief by the people;   also an incontestible reality in this day and time.  With clear and potential threats of extermination on all sides: it is not a matter for courtroom debate beyond an opening statement, and whatever readable information the defense wishes to create and support.  I provide the web sites www.justtalking3.info www.justtalking2.info and www.justtalking.info  As the foundation of my debate, and the jury can read prior to actual trial if they so choose.  For that purpose, control can be given to the court of these sites, and any other site I personally provide; that they may be sealed by the court other than further courtroom work.  So there can be NO allowances for change.  But in so doing the court does become responsible for the sites for the duration of trial, whatever that will be; including financial.
The defense is welcome to provide the same/ but as there has been significant and real work throughout the nation and within the government on these issues: there shall be no allowance of more than 30 days to collect and present these materials, should they so desire.

BECAUSE redress is included, and that affects us all/ which means there can be NO “uninterested or untouched jurors” to be selected.  There cannot be a common jury selection attributed to this process;   we all have a stake in what happens to our nation, healthcare, world, future, etc.  There are NO unbiased jurors on this question.  Consequently, it is my suggestion that a group of roughly one hundred jurors be called;   each given a number; and by random selection of those numbers:    shall be the jurors who shall decide. It is then representative of the nation as best we can.
The plaintiff statement entitled “jury paper” shall be provided to the potential jurors, each one of the hundred/ so that any who do not feel they can make this decision, may turn away.  That statement is intended to clarify a purpose, and the decision being asked for. So that all who accept a “random number”, can be given their right to decide for the citizens of this nation/ and those for whom this is too much to ask, can walk away.  The defendant is free to submit his own.

5.  After jury trial is over;   one way or the other!  There will be no appeal by me, regarding redress/ let them decide. 
Their decision must include 3 things: 
A)   IF WE THE JURY DECIDE for or against redress of grievances for the nation: by asking Champaign County of the State of IL:     BY legal  VOTE of all the citizens here.
DO WE WANT A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, according to the first amendment of the US Constitution:  for this NATION?
  Fully understanding, it means we take responsibility for our own lives and nation/ and find our solutions, without avoiding reality, by examining, investigating  and deciding what is true.   
 Or in the alternative if it is a unanimous jury/ then you may consider asking the entire state of IL if they will vote, instead of just the county.
Be aware: votes cost money/ and so do trials.

B)   IF WE THE JURY DECIDE, for or against:   establishing the failure of DUE PROCESS (let the judge make his own decision)   by the US SUPREME COURT in case 08-1339 [found on both http://www.justtalking3.info/talking_points.html  And www.justtalking2.info the functional purpose of that site] as a part of this redress trial;  before this nation.  In effect demanding of the US supreme court that they shall answer for this trial, and its dismissal/ when as a nation, future, and even world we are without doubt in need of a new path, and a new way of establishing government by  democracy for ourselves.  Its not a game, it’s the law.

C)   IF WE THE JURY DECIDE, for or against the plaintiff James F. Osterbur/ that the charge of   “This is NOT what I agreed to pay for” shall or shall not be upheld. With regard to both the hospital and doctor billing against him, and subsequent lawyer bills, and court costs.    Subsequent judgment as to costs.

IF THE JURY DECIDES FOR REDRESS BY VOTE AMONG THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY OR STATE/ WHO SHALL THEN ASK OR SUBMIT TO THE NATION:   WE MUST as WE THE PEOPLE now go to court; and decide what our nation, our future, and our world shall become.
Then that trial MUST be dealt with by lawyers for the people of this USA.  Because a plain citizen cannot represent this nation in such a trial unless so chosen by the people. And the people pay.   I, James Frank Osterbur:    HOWEVER WILL be representing myself as a citizen with the legal rights to my say in court, as the filing  plaintiff in this action/ as I see fit.

THAT MEANS:   the vote to be taken by the people shall include the one person, or one group of people:  that this nation shall elect to represent them by being in control of the lawyers and their direction in court; must exist.   Through the authority to hire or to fire any lawyer representing the people for redress;   as they choose.  Thereby sustaining the direction this redress is intended to go, as best he/ she/ or they can.

The list shall include but not be limited too:
the plaintiff   James Frank Osterbur
the judges of this courtroom, as a group
the president of this USA
majority rules.

The question to be voted upon is the same as the jurors shall answer above in subsections “A & B”.

As redress is about a nation in crisis in one form or another/ initial trial must begin within 90 days, and be fully developed for the people of this nation: within 120 days from jury acceptance to begin this process/ assuming all votes uphold this decision.  It ends, when it ends/ but no filibustering by anyone.  The court must maintain dignified order/ and apply penalties as demanded by the public.
Therefore it is wise to allow a public vote to include:   what penalty shall you demand, with regard to outright and intentional liars?   Will you use a scale?  Shall you use: 1-7 least harm being 1.   Majority rules.

Because threats exist BEYOND THE REALM of “we can wait with this”!  Once the initial jury decides/ there MUST BE A MORATORIUM PLACED against ALL   “BIG SCIENCE” projects/ including asking the international court to shut down CERN in its experiments as this people demand to learn about the gamble and possible risks to the planet and life on earth!  UNTIL the people themselves have had their say.  It is fair to say,   WE ASK FOR AN ENTIRE WORLD, in these matters; and it is WITHOUT DOUBT,   if you gamble with all our lives/ THEN WE HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT, to the decision:   we will or will not allow this on our planet.  Its NOT a game/ these things have become life or death to our world.  Our whole world.    And WE DO, deserve our say, and shall speak for the world in this matter, because it cannot wait.  The court itself is responsible for these moratoriums;   so that NONE can say “it is not correct, or not valid, or not of the people, or any other such excuse”.   YOUR JOB, is to protect this people, and as a result to protect this world as well.  There is NO EXCUSE.   We must be allowed to have our say/    It is our lives at risk: EVEN OUR VERY WORLD!