APPELLATE COURT OF IL
FOURTH DISTRICT
201 W. MONROE BOX 19206
SPRINGFIELD IL 62794-9206
DATED: September 2, 2010
James Frank Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E
St. Joseph, IL 61873
RE: Osterbur, James v. Provena Covenant Medical center
general no 4-10-0679
county champaign
Trial court no: 09-LM-1414
in addition to docketing statement to be filled out, sent by the court, this statement is added for clarity.
#6: the US CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
Amendment 1; for the peaceful legal petition of “government employees” under the terms of redress of grievances for the people themselves: the opportunity called democracy, or more clearly the rights granted and guaranteed to WE THE PEOPLE. Under that grant, the legal process of “the right of the people to peacefully assemble”; DOES become an action within the courtroom of this USA/ this state of IL as described.
Amendment 4: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.....” Or in the terms of this trial: without an honest courtroom to defend myself (my possessions)/ the judge seizes what is mine, and contorts the authority of a court; BEYOND what the law allows. A judge is a servant of the law/ NOT the law itself.
Amendment 7; “in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved....”
Amendment 14; “....nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”....
Contract law; which is the basis of this initial trial IS WELL UNDERSTOOD by the court/ as it is an “everyday event” and always has been in any courtroom. Consequently any assertion by a judge that simple contractual terms are not clear and concise: IS A LIE. On August 23, 2010 judge Difanis with the assistance of the defense attorny Daniel Slayden established a situation wherein the amended complaint could be simply dismissed without trial. That left the plaintiff compulsory summation as is the transcript of that trial. No defense/ no law/ no attempt to understand by questioning: simply removal by “the whim of a judge”/ and the assertion “not a clear and concise statement of your position” OR (I don’t understand). Which is insufficient by law. Its his job, to do better/ my right to proceed to trial by jury.
#8 THE FAILURE of a judge to obey the law, to the best of his ability is: corruption in the court, and with investigation perhaps more.
#9 As to an expedited schedule: I am all for establishing the law. NOT the whim of a judge. Therein if you feel like obeying the law. If you feel like recognizing: the US CONSTITUTION is the foundation of all law, and CANNOT be dismissed for any cause whatsoever. Then by all means: return this trial to court/ establish redress for the people of champaign county/ state/ and nation if that is their choice. And give me relief, by jury: from a contractual change that is unwarranted, and to which I did not agree.
The foundations in place for contractual and constitutional trial, the issue of a doctors payment and his collection agency are included/ and have been kept informed. Because this came after filling as a separate billing/ thereby did not become included in the original filing. Yet it is, a part of this case: decided upon by whether or not that fee should have been included in the agreed too “Fast track care”. And the additional dependent issue remaining: of not only applying an expensive test, without identifying to me why: thereby giving me the chance to say no, and understand the consequences of that decision prior to its expense!