IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
VERMILION COUNTY, ILLINOIS Vermilion County Courthouse 7 North Vermilion Street Danville, IL 61832
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF
LARRY D. IDEUS deceased
no. 2023-P-102
re: FINAL REPORT:
AND ITS ALTERNATE CLAIM.
FROM: JAMES FRANK OSTERBUR
2191 county road 2500 E. ST. JOSEPH, IL 61873
DATED: 6/23/25
WITHOUT REGARD; for what has been sent/ a final draft of what is, has been written.
IT IS, the tragedy of human life, that values shift/ realities of respect are destroyed/ the greed and selfishness of others must be dealt with. And foundations even of family; are thrown away; for the simple purpose of trying to prove you can, as is war: TAKE whatever you want.
As for me: I have been busy with my own work as established www.jamesfosterbur.com but have now finally, finished with that. Let the world “live or die”/ they have been warned; of the cost for being WRONG. YOU too, now become the inheritors of a communication that is valid: to life or death of this world: choose, because the evidence is real! This file found on: www.jamesfosterbur.com/larry/
Therefore we now, look back to the beginning of this malaise; and learn that I told a representative for each side of the inheritors abandoned (no addresses, etc; for the others) who did not respond to me. And I have been evicted from filing; by DEMANDING THE LAW IS REDRESS: MUST BE OBEYED in both state and federal courts. ESTABLISHED, by several trials. Removed: by their claim of frivolous. A determination to protect the powerful. With regard to a specific court case, refused/ and then re-established; that clearly looked to be a trap for me. BECAUSE contempt can be declared “for anything”/ and held in place for years. Making the law and its purpose as valid for life itself; worth less than a rule. As is disgraced, a society in chaos.
TODAY you take me back into court, without that “revenge restriction”: and I am here to defend myself/ as I see fit. Which means: that not all claims have been legally resolved or paid. Rather the conception of “no choice”/ was accepted by the others; AS ALWAYS, the price of lawyers too high; nothing left. And for me: no confidence in the legal profession was allowed. Making this my only legal, alternate opportunity. TO DEFEND MYSELF OR MY INHERITANCE.
Such is the state of complete judicial failure/ and its distrust of values, justice, or fair play; as is the evidence, in this state, and this nation USA.
As to the estate of Larry D. Ideus/ now deceased. What is critical is not his will or his death by lymphodemia (gorilla neck; even though no mention of it existed. While numerous claims he was at the doctor, and made his own decisions were offered), and whatever else ailed him. As to the reality of his estate/ not his will. That will being changed to reflect and give in its entirety; the estate of Larry D. Ideus to those who were responsible for his existence over the last year or so of his life/ being paid at common nursing home rates (for cause)/ he made decisions to participate or not, previous to that..
The foundation of it is very simple: HE, by his own measure and decision, created his will back roughly 40 years ago: to make promises to his family/ and pay back some of the help he had received from family; throughout those forty years of living. He promised and kept in place: a list of family children as his equal beneficiaries; throughout those years. Being healthy, free, and competent to do so. And was indeed paid for his gift/ his contract, to those who had helped him: by the thanks we all knew would be his reward. Because death is too late to say thanks. So the reality of what he did do: was to give away his estate as he personally chose to do and enforce/ until his last year or two; when he became sick/ and needed care until he died. Changing the will.
So he made another will; and with that will: he was able to give away whatever it was he had not given away previously. Because the contract he had made with his family; was a promissory contract; very similar in nature to a pension; for his beneficiaries. His chosen beneficiaries; were in fact told they could depend upon this promise of death: that they could count upon his decision in their best interest to be carried out; as he had decreed it to be. Therefore some, were certain to believe what they had been promised. And in his last days, with what seemed to be competency; although tragic sickness never is. His decision was NOT TO TELL anyone; who had been ejected from his new will: so they could not object or change their opinion of him/ or attempt to remake their arrangements for their own future securities.
That the intent was to give his then caretakers all the money he could in exchange for taking care of him for what no doubt he believed or expected to be “years”. That however does not negate the contractual breach of promise of the first will. The estoppel of denying the first will/ in order to completely change it by the second (near death) will 51. S.E. 514, 521 does not in good conscious allow the claim: they have no rights. Larry made decisions and enacted rights of his own free will; in what was without doubt, a foundation gesture of friendship to those who had helped him (by giving to their children) survive; his work and life as a farmer. In doing so: Larry created a lien against his property upon his death: a reality of ownership, as is the same as a pension plan to those who were given the right to expect payment; but only at the end of his life. Larry gained from his granting an ownership to his property; as is the reality of “a reward for helping me”. To the children. Which did occur, by family members on several occasions; nearly all now being dead. But the children remain same.
That is “second decision”: a breach of contract: 682 F. 2d 883, 885.
and it touches on a breach of covenant; because the elemental dependency upon a “pension plan” should not be taken lightly/ and should never to be violated or discarded; as to; being absolutely silent and without warning to his beneficiaries; as was in evidence here. Valid retirement plans; legally enforced as was the originating will/ which occupied the law for decades as his choice; are when organized to provide an income to be expected; are in fact a pension plan. Opportunities did exist, and were denied; by Larry, and his trustee Alan/ Jessika Ideus Day. And their lawyer who would have known better.
We then observe “property settlement”; the existence of a trust; stated or otherwise in a will form. Or, more directly the breach of trust that is the matter of complete failure; by Larry. Through the trustee Alan Ideus, and his accomplice/ direct participant; that is Jessika. It is a simple decision: “either a pension/ retirement plan was established for stated beneficiaries”/ or it was not.
To the best of my knowledge:
The purpose of the trust created for the extension of family values and support; has been trashed. As is clearly recorded through the will, and disposition; of Larry. Not only were we threatened “as with war/ let us take all we want; or we can do worse”. With the claim that Lucille gave more to Larry that he collected/ allowing for: the income will then be invested by you: so now his inheritors, who have been changed: want to collect/ what was never intended to be less than “for Lucille’s children/ for Ideus family connections. When in fact, the real gift was; Lucille gave to Larry “her love as family”/ because he was in need (the army failed him); and she wanted to show her love. So believing with certainty that Larry would do as he claimed in his initial will; which was in response to buying his initial 120 acres of ground. That Larry would in fact create an increased reward for Lucille’s children accordingly. Because Larry was about the money/ causing a rift and increasing cost to her own marriage; she did not see coming. Frank said no; he would invest/ and both Larry and Lucille agreed to that. Nonetheless a threat.
Alan and Jessika then took the trust money and remodeled Larry’s house/ which was not part of the trust; and had no connection to the trust; a theft. As Larry had bought the house and property for his own personal purposes. Owning it outright.
Alan and Jessika then created the illusion of a claim; that the inheritance of Lucille was not to be transferred to her children as an equal participant in the trust (we should get less, than her share); when she died.
And hired “people” to deal with the result of anger that had risen due to these things and more; causing the implosion of family itself: no longer “same”. When in fact the issue of “renting land” is merely to set a price and collect a check twice a year/ which the farmer himself can write to each inheritor. Making the cost of providing “a wall” to avoid the reality; of trustee failures. A worthless expense, to ourselves.
the third decision: the trust has been violated irreparably/ its purpose in formation no longer valid or helpful to the existence of a family that has been torn apart.
Because like an entire world; Alan and Jessika given the opportunity to do so/ chose want, not family; and proceeded to dispose of family other than the separation that is apparent. As is MINE/ MINE/ MINE; “to hell with you”/ its all MINE. Ending the claim of family which is “I am not alone/ someone cares, at least a little”; which is the foundation of happiness itself. Lost or belittled as worth less than money, which cares not at all. “they, scraped the ground” for every penny: leaving none.
The cost of that is plain: the trust is no longer valid or accepted as its purpose no longer exists. The position of trustee; without honor. The reality of a future for the trust; is destroyed.
The result being: even though 3 members of the initiating trust remain alive; two are next to 90 years old. IF these die first/ the trust falls into the hands of: Alan is 75/ and whosoever pays the “lawyer”. I think. It is my belief that the trust should now be dissolved; so that the inheritance of Lucille, and Janis can proceed to their children; and the property sold, at the earliest convenience possible. Because Lucille’s children are now 73/ 72/ and 71 years old; and Janis’ children a little younger; while it no longer makes any sense, to try to retain family connections; where it is no longer possible to be. While at over 70 years, or even less old: nobody has a guarantee of time. Which makes inheritance now or never, with no guarantee the children of Connie or Susie/ Sheryl (now deceased) her child Heather/ and grandchild or Peggy and her child; or the realities of myself or Cindy; shall ever inherit anything from this trust or its intent to help and sustain “family” as intended. Family is then better served; by separation. What we would want/ prefer to be as family no longer matters; it is done. Forgiveness is left, only to those who repent/ and prove changed.
While we give to the “younger generation, that is from Alan and Jessika”/ and to Michael (too far away to be involved); opportunities to reconnect. The distinction of “people in charge” has been discarded/ and we are no longer family/ even though my mother would cry over this; because she cared deeply for those she grew up with and in fact raised (intensely important to her); because Anna and George, were in need of her help with 5 children. That is destroyed, by greed and selfishness. A cost of time, a loss of heart; a failure to accept family is more important than money.
Fourth decision: It is unfortunate but true: the family is erased/ and so should be: the trust be divided. Because it no longer functions for the purpose to which it was created. “the extension of family; participating as one entity”/ for the value and safety, of happiness in all.
The offenders pay all; the costs. The inheritors of Lucille and Janis (now living in a Nursing home/ with her previous home for sale; which likely means power of attorney has been transferred ) will pick the ground to be sold; as their share. And the realities of being denied their pensions created by Larry D. Ideus; should enter into the realities of how much and how it should be divided for those who were suddenly denied their rights. Donald Gene Ideus has every right to be accepting his claim to property back; to give or dispense with as he sees fit.
Critically; it is the court and claim of government: that should deny to anyone who has received A HEALTH CRISIS; of their own. That no change in any will should be allowed. Because no person in crisis of health can make “sound mind and body” choices. It does not exist; sudden needs separate from reality will always influence their choice. Which makes it plain and simple; the will in place clearly chosen when “sound mind and body” did control: declares what is true and intended.
NOT the will of sickness; or a failure to recognize reality; or a disguised will, the mind does not truly comprehend; because death is coming/ and takes precedence. Ending the claim; regardless of “looks”/ that is “of sound mind and body”.
Or if there is no will the lineage back at least 2 generations will decide; same for all. There is an elemental belief in family ties: that we are all equal/ and parents should in fact treat all the same. OR AT THE VERY LEAST; should inform those who will not share in an inheritance; the actual information they need to provide for themselves, without that retirement funding. I do not believe in; anything other than equal. IF ONE deserves help more so than the other/ then it is for you to do, in life; when it matters more to you. WE CANNOT “pick our relatives”/ they are, or they are not; and we should not try. Because nobody gets to be “judge of our lives”/ the law does that for actions or reactions; when absolutely necessary. So that we do not measure each other; allowing the claim; to play god. Other than, what is: “love (valued) or hate (diseased)”.
PROOF OF SERVICE dated 6/23/ 25
I. James F. Osterrbur do hereby declare; that a true and accurate copy of the aforementioned letter to the court; re: FINAL REPORT: AND ITS ALTERNATE CLAIM.
Has been duly deposited in a valid US post office; for first class delivery to the addresses and people below: with all postage paid.