THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS, the right of the judiciary to its powers and authority ONLY during “good behavior”/ it is not an insignificant interpretation to demand that good behavior is created during the honorable application of justice/ fair play/ and equality for all the people, in their actions/ and in their ways/ to aid and sustain justice for all.  It is blind arrogance that asserts an insignificant rule has anything to do with justice/ has anything to do with constitutional law/ has anything to do with WE THE PEOPLE, or this DEMOCRACY.  Instead the use and consideration of the contract: each employee of the judiciary has with this people, is very simply: YOU HAVE MADE A PROMISE TO US/ that there shall be justice for all.  So too, has the oath of office demanded of a judge established:   to honor and protect, both the people and this nation.  There is no honor in your letter/ no dignity in your intent to fine me or suggest dismissal.  There is no integrity within the court when the law can be dismissed; the need or right of any person discarded; for nothing more than a rule.  The conspiracy to control the courtroom, rather than open it to the law and the constitution by the terms of “WE THE PEOPLE” continues to grow. As this evidence shows.

Further, as of this date;   the clerks office has NOT returned their opinion as to the draft brief that was sent with this appeal/ so that it could be verified prior to the fifteen copies you request.  A service your own papers offer.  That means either the clerks office is deliberately holding onto this text      Fully and deliberately intending to dismiss this case because of a lack of fifteen copies sent.  WHEN IN FACT, it is your failure/ not mine.  That is an issue that will not be tolerated, because it is in fact adverse possession: the hostile intent to claim a right of title (to dismiss)/ when in fact, it is your work that is lacking/ not mine.  That would be, a “notorious action”/ deliberately intending to usurp and destroy the guaranteed legal rights of a US citizen, doing his best to comply with all necessary actions of a legitimate court. This is in fact, functionally and fundamentally “a chilling effect” upon the law, and the litigant, whose only purpose is:   to demand “you cannot come here/ we won’t let you”.  That is NOT legally, ethically, morally, or constitutionally within the statutes and purposes of justice; nor is it chained to the purpose of either the fourteenth amendment which guarantees my right to stand and be heard within a courtroom of law, and be heard upon the grounds of constitutional right and duty. 
Circuit rule 3(c) is merely a form for all intents and purposes; and if you want little more than a signature/ then provide the form in clear detail yourselves. The prejudice is plain/ the purpose is simple: this is a threat subjecting the pro se litigant to nothing more than “a test”/ by which those in the corruption of power, who assert and assume:    We will simply change the rules, and discard the law and litigant/ because who can challenge us. As is “the color issue” of civil rights particularly from the 60's / so is the “legal education” to the reality of pro se in the courtroom of this USA. The assertion, “we are better”, simply because of an insignificant difference. The reality:   JUSTICE, has nothing to do with a diploma OR RULE.  DUE PROCESS has nothing to do with a diploma or rule.  FAIR PLAY exists within the assertion and demonstration: even though “I ain’t as pretty or smart as you”/ I still have a right to be here, to be simple and plain, and to demand the law applies to all!  Such is the meaning of equality.

As to the docketing statement itself, the critical information was provided to the court, as a handwritten notation on the form sent by the court requesting who would be lawyer in this matter:  it is me.  Although I did not send that to the other listed parties involved, because they do already know; by virtue of the past.  Consequently they do have all such information.

Again, the facts are: I, James Frank Osterbur whose legal address is    2191 county road 2500 e.   St. Joseph IL 61873 am a pro se litigant in this appeals, case 10-2146
There have been no other appeals in this matter, there have been no other filings in this matter, in any other court, nor in any other state. This appeal extends from district court 10-cv-2055 as you well know judge Harold A. Baker presiding.  The only prior litigation that arises in YOUR court/ US APPEALS for the 7th circuit:   are the cases 94-1943 &94-1944   appealed from federal district court for central IL located in Danville IL at the time:   cases 94-2060 & 94-2001.            
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!
Therein the assumption, that I will continue to play the game set out by the court and its employees who have transformed democracy and the validity and authority of constitutional law into a game, wherein they change the rules/ lie/ cheat/ steal/ establish treason/ and functionally rebel against WE THE PEOPLE:   should not be assumed.  I am here for justice, and that is established by the reality of facts which do create and sustain the authority of law/ NOT simple rules by which employees have clearly usurped their intended authority and actively attack the foundations of democracy which are:   the constitution rules/ the people have ultimate authority within the constitutional decrees/ the judiciary are servants of the people:   THEREIN I tell you plainly as a pro se litigant YOU are subject to the foundations which support justice.  And these are NOT HIDDEN within the proclamation or purpose or intent of a damn rule by which justice is robbed from the citizen and the constitution is not only broken and abandoned by the people as a failure to them: BUT UPHELD BEFORE THEM, as immaculate and clean/ because the judiciary MUST obey the law.

As to jurisdictional statements: the foundation of law is the constitution.  NOT ONE LAW EXISTS, NOT ONE ACT OF CONGRESS IS ESTABLISHED, NOT ONE DECISION OF ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS ACCEPTED OR VALID WITHOUT THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

TO ASSERT, THAT FACT IS NOT SUFFICIENT JURISDICTION, IN THE MATTERS PRESENTED WITHIN THE APPELLANTS BRIEF, as a jurisdictional statement;   constitutes a lie.  To assume that corruption within the judicial system of America is not a matter for review, and renewed authority to and through the constitution of this United States: is a fundamental percept of this trial. WE THE PEOPLE OWN THIS COURTROOM, and every other.  We own it, we pay the salary, we provide the nation, we establish the law or break it as is the will of the majority, we fight or die for life, liberty, truth, and everything else: AND IF THE COURT is found not engaged in this battle for honor and for life, as is promised by the constitution/ THEN IT IS THE COURT, that is in open rebellion against the law and nation.  These things are not defended, not sustained, not interpreted or created by rules/ rules are merely “the anti-christ of government (not religious, it means NOT a savior by any conception/ a destroyer of life and values)” by which people are subjected to RULERS.   Democracy, is about freedom/ and the integrity required to believe  justice will prevail.  The honor to fight for what is legally true, and fundamentally necessary as is the duty of every citizen including those who sit behind the bench.  The gang “whose color is black”/ whose purpose seeks control rather than freedom or liberty/ who hide in obscure detail, and frivolous in unedo so as to contain and gloat over the people, by that power over access to the court/ whose desire is with the rich, the power, and the pride”:   is to be disbanded.  Replaced with those who accept their oath of office is true.