IN CHAMPAIGN COUNTY COURT
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OSTERBUR V. PROVENA COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER
CASE #2009 LM 1414
dated: 4/ 1/ 10
RE: motion to dismiss, by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
in response: it is an oversight of mine, not to have invited and informed, Provena Medical Center to the federal trial 10-2055 Osterbur V. USA and State of IL and Judge Chase Leonhard.
I will amend that oversight by presenting all parties in trial 2009 LM 1414 with their own copy of the federal trial that has taken over jurisdiction of case 2009 LM 1414. This county court no longer has jurisdiction in this matter, due to its failure to abide by the law of first amendment redress of grievances. According to the US constitution.
THIS FEDERAL CASE IN US DISTRICT COURT, URBANA IL 10-2055 seeks and demands that the state court of IL shall obey the law, and establish first amendment redress of grievances as has been outlined in the aforementioned case 2009 LM 1414. Thereby the judge Chase Leonhard does not hold jurisdiction in this matter any longer, but is at trial himself as a common citizen who has broken the law/ a criminal felony act: robbing me of my first amendment rights as a citizen of this USA.
CONSEQUENTLY, this judge cannot administer any ruling in this case 2009 LM 1414 until the federal trial has run its course; if indeed the judge is found innocent of the charges, only then.
As to the complaint registered by Hinshaw and Culbertson; I will respond anyway, so that all are clear, and none need continue the charade of a failure to understand.
#1. Believing that the healthcare crisis in this USA, requires a citizens right to redress according to the first amendment/ it was fundamental to filing a complaint of being “baited and switched”, by the hospital. I asked specifically: “anything but an emergency room visit/ was told that was available”/ and then was charged for an emergency room visit. You know this is my complaint/ it is absolutely clear, and there is no room for doubt or the transgression of simply lying in a courtroom of law. To assert “I don’t know”/ when in fact it is obvious and clear you could not help yourself in any way: but to know this is the factual basis of the lawsuit. And it epitomizes the national trouble with healthcare. YOU CHARGE TOO MUCH, FOR FAR TOO LITTLE, and expect thank you, for next to nothing. It is time for change. A criminal court rules, IF THE LAW, called first amendment redress of grievances does not exist in the court of this United States of America. And we are here today to see, literally: if the criminal or justice rules the nation.
#2. I no longer allow in unedo or hearsay in this legal matter: YOU WILL pick specific statements, establish exactly what you believe or do not believe they say/ be specific about what it is that lacks in your opinion: AND THEREBY ASSIST ME, THE COURT, AND THE CITIZENS OF THIS NATION, in finding justice. Whether you like it or not.
#3 there is no need for a second amendment/ as there is logic and substance in the original filing, including enough words, that if something was “misplaced” YOU WOULD use those words to convict me of “something”. You produce no words, to identify “that he is wrong”. Rather you choose to admit: YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE, therefore must rely upon the abuse of rules without substance, and meanings without law containing value. Since you find nothing to contend with against me, in the words that I use. It must be concluded: you have destroyed your own merit of argument, and resolved to be enemies of the court. THOSE WHO CHOOSE JUSTICE, are friends of the court/ those who choose to be illiterate and contrary defining an intent toward chaos, are enemies. The law and its justice are simple: as defined in section one above. And I do have a legal right to ask the people of this state, or this county, or a jury of twelve: if they too believe that we the people of this nation, SHALL ACCEPT the responsibility for making our own decisions for the nation; or not/ as the law allows! This is a guaranteed, inherent right to each and every citizen of this USA. It is treachery, or treason to stand against the citizen and his guaranteed right, to embody an enemy, to steal a nation from its purpose in law. Is that you?
#4 the function of every courtroom called justice, is to understand and rule according to the needs of the nation, its people, and its demand for fair play, equality, and honorable intent. Fair play includes the common language of the people, and there is nothing about my pleading that does not engage the common language and fundamental dialogue of the peoples in this nation. Which means the court itself HAS CORRUPTED the intent of law, with words and innuendo that do not belong to this people. Thereby stealing from WE THE PEOPLE, their own laws, and their own rights under the sanction of OUR DEMOCRACY, AND OUR CONSTITUTION. That is a criminal act, a conspiracy within the court to destroy the peoples right, and their access to a courtroom: because the criminal sets where a judge is intended to be. The obvious purpose, to claim enormous amounts of money, by pretending the law is superior to the language of this people. I TELL YOU PLAINLY, it is not/ and you are a traitor for suggesting “our lives, are for sale,” in your blatant attempt to control, discriminate, and destroy the equality of litigants with the arrogance of words.
#5 what is not logical about agreeing to treatment “in a fast track” situation/ and NOT being willing to accept emergency room billing WHEN I SPECIFICALLY SAID NO/ and in fact stated “I will wait, rather than enter emergency care”. NOT FAIR, THEREFORE in court today.
#6 this is a contractual dispute with this hospital, a matter of plain and simple agreement. In the filing “preparations for trial” as was sent in lieu of an amended filing: it is absolutely clear, the only real contention is: whether the statement “I said anything but an emergency room”/ and the receptionist said: “yes we do, its called fast track” ; will be argued or not.
#7 the attorney for the defense has failed to produce these “substantial defects”/ and I will not be “convicted on here say” LET THE DEFENSE produce the words he states “I cannot understand”! The law of justice demands it/ the reality of trial, is specifically designed to provide the proper and legal format to determine exactly “what the complaint is”. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A JURY/ TO DECIDE, if the plaintiff has merit or not! It is NOT, the job of the defendant to decide/ nor is it the job of the judge. I DEMAND THE JURY BE HONORED, AND TRIAL BEGIN. As is consistent and proper with a legal trial/ presented by an alternate judge, as this one cannot stay.
#8. Given the failure of justice to preside in this courtroom, the reality of a defendant hostile to the law, and the rights of fair play; under equal standing before the law. The court has no option but to establish trial, create first amendment redress of grievances: And GIVE THE PEOPLE, THEIR LAW, while proving justice IS the purpose of this court in the matter of smaller matters such as is the complaint which began this trial. No more hiding in corruption. No more prejudicial statements against the people, against the democracy called this USA, no more running away from the truth. This is a plain and simple case, and needs no further explanations; until the jury is seated... DO YOUR JOB, LAWFULLY!