Motion in Limine

James F. Osterbur
2191 county road 2500 E. St. Joseph IL 61873
Vs.
United States of America
Internal Revenue Service/ dept of the Treasury; 1500 Pennsylvania ave NW   DC 20220
the Solicitor General   ROOM 5614, Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania ave, NW   Washington DC 20530-0001
the Attorney General   US dept of Justice 10th and Constitution avenues NW Washington DC 20530
the President Barrack Obama;   1600 Pennsylvania ave NW , DC 20500

MOTION IN LIMINE
THE EVIDENCE in question is the text order from the court from Judge David G. Bernthal on 12/ 6/ 10   suggesting the illusion that he “ is uncertain what specific relief Plaintiff is seeking” TO CLARIFY THAT I RETURN YOU TO THE LAST TWO FILINGS, AND THE SPECIFIC RELIEF APPEARING ON TOP OF EACH OF THOSE FILINGS”. The consequence of this evidence whether the court finds it objectionable or not, IS VALID. And has proven merit within constitutional law.
THE EVIDENCE in question is the text order from the court from Judge David G. Bernthal on 12/ 6/ 10   suggesting the admissibility of this clear evidence shall be shelved and the defendant need not reply to my legitimate filings in this case IS FRAUD.   PROVE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, “PLAIN ENGLISH”/ one simple sentence: OR THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THIS LAND. OR remove this order of the court/ and prove justice through equal standing, and due process.
THE EVIDENCE in question is the text order from the court from Judge David G. Bernthal on 12/ 6/ 10   suggesting no response deadline for the defendant denies “my right to a speedy trial/ my contractual right with this government and with this court: FOR FAIR, AND IMPARTIAL TREATMENT. A CLEAR BIAS, AN ACT OF PREJUDICE, AND A FAILURE TO RESPECT BOTH THE LAW AND ME;   are in clear evidence here.

This is a reversible error/ thereby due your duty & earn the money you are paid; because if you don’t obey the law/ then you are a criminal in contempt of the law:   IS THAT NOT SO? Prove me wrong.
THIS IS YOUR PENDING MOTION:   RULE ON IT!
Answer this question: according to the bill of rights section 4: “no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community..”    True or false. RULE ON IT.

SOME OF THOSE PREVIOUS FILINGS ARE, AND DEMANDS FOR REDRESS TRIAL in this court/ as is my first amendment right: evidencing the truth YOU DO UNDERSTAND. Are below.

dated: 12/3/10 trial number: 10-2257

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.

dated: 12/02/10 trial number: 10-2257

the defendant is inquisitive enough to bring forth the cases previous: ALL OF WHICH INVOLVED, redress of grievances/ A FIRST AMENDMENT LAW, GUARANTEEING THE LEGAL RIGHT OF EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN; to inquire of WE THE PEOPLE THROUGH COURT: if as a country we should demand accountability from our employees.