From: Charles Bruce, Stewart;
39275 Hood St, # D
Sandy, Clackamas County, Oregon [97055]
Phone: 668-3932;
January 5, 2000

To: Clackamas County Commissioner/Judge Larry Sowa
Re: Clackamas County Court & Heckman Case

Commissioner/Judge Sowa;
            I, Charles Stewart; in the name of & on behalf of "We the People" of the "State of Oregon"& Clackamas County", hereby do take this Liberty of re-communicating with you the same request which a number of us outlined to you in the December 6th, 1999 9-page letter/fax sent to yourself. That letter/fax explained sent to yourself. That letter/fax explained that its purpose was to provide a "hard copy" of the essential concerns we placed before you during the previous private meeting we shared with you on the morning November 15th. That private meeting sought to address concerns outlined in an even earlier Public Meeting with yourself & Commissioner/ Judge Kennemier, at the evening "Open Forum", on the date of the Wednesday the 20th of October 1999.
            Therein; W; Therein; William & Delores Heckman, (again in the name of & on behalf of "We the People" of Clackamas County", & the "State of Oregon", & others including myself in Public Assistance thereto) did formally placed a verbal Sworn Felony Criminal Complaint establishing a Prima Facia Case before yourself & Commissioner/Judge Kennemier, in your capacity as a
quorum for the "County Court", & as the "Governing Body of the County".
      nbsp;        Thereunder, I, Charles Stewart; did make brief, & time constrained argument that it is the "Duty" of you Commissioners (as perceived by ourselves) to "Administer-Justice" form the "County Court" of Clackamas County under its "General ... Judicial Powers", precisely as is recognized within Article 7 Original Section 1 of Oregon's Constitution. This would also be a Constitutionally recognizable "Local Jurisdiction" exercising the direct & full Soamp; full Sovereignty of this "State of Oregon", as is recognizable under Article 4 Section 23 of Oregon's Constitution. Hereunder, the "County Court" is a Constitutionally Recognizable "Political-SubDivision" of the Sovereignty of this State, exercising a "Joint-Tenancy" along side of the other Counties of Oregon concerning all "Matters of County Concern", which is the vast majority of issues affecting daily life in this County.
          p;    Hereunder, the "County Governing Body" is recognizably Exempt from the vast majority of the Lawmaking activities of the Civil Government of this "State of Oregon". The epidemic of "Malum Prohibitum" legislation which seeks to authorize a "Breach of the Peace" against individuals without there being a "Corpus Delecti" (Body Harmed) or a "Mens Rea" (Evil Intent,
aka: Culpable Mental State, ORS 161.085 (6)) is of no binding force over those Counties which Responsibly Self-Gonsibly Self-Govern.

            To digress upon this extra-constitutional authority being exercised for just a moment, in discussing these matters recently with your very courteous & competent assistant, Jenny VanLou (sp?), we once again returned to the case-law precedent which we have previously handed to you commissioners (at a meeting before October even), wherein we sought to address these extra
constitutional authorities bal authorities being applied within the Counties. Hereunder, a photo-copy of the case-law precedent of State-Ex Rel Madden v Crawford, 295 P.2d 174 was handed to each of you. Therein it reads on page 82?:
            "... under the 1910 amendment, circuit courts & county courts are not mentioned. Hence, under ss 1
of Art. 7, as amended in 1910, the Supreme Court is the only court created by the constitution itself;on itself; all other
courts are to be created by legislative act. However, it was to prevent a hiatus in the administration of justice
that the first portion of ss 2 of Art 7, as amended in 1910, was adopted."

            This case-law precedent recognizes two important conditions existing in this state which affect us here in Clackamas County. First, there is an "Emergency" going onency" going on with regard to the "Administration of Justice" on a State-wide basis. This is clear from the use of the term "Hiatus". At that early meeting, within my meager 3 minute allowance, I tried to point out that
over half of the ordinances being enacted within Clackamas County have "Declarations of Emergency" contained within them, & that this was an effective "Bad-Faith" work-around of the "Chains of the Constitution", thereunder subjecting "We the People" to an extra-constitutra-constitutional (foreign) Malum-Prohibitum Jurisdiction.
            Secondly, there is no "Separation of Powers" effectively in place any longer, as is required if the "Republican" form of Civil Government is to be maintained. The only possible exception to this fact is for the Supreme Court of Oregon's Civil Government. But even there, no case can get to that court (basically) unless it proceeds by appeal, for it is not aor it is not a trial-level court.
Anyone seeking "Due Course & Process of Law" within this "State of Oregon" are presently effectively limited to those Circuit Courts (others maybe) which do Not exercise a "Judicial Power". All courts modernly deriving their authority from the Civil Government of Oregon by way of Amended Article 7 are exercising a "Legislative Power". This is clear from the above
quote, because it clearly shows that the Legislature is the Source of the authority of aauthority of all modern trial-level Courts. Under Original Article 7 Section 1, the Circuit Courts & County Courts exercised the "Judicial Power" of the State, under a "General Jurisdiction". Hereunder, the Circuit Courts no longer exercise this "Judicial Power" nor do they any longer exercise that
previous "General Jurisdiction".

            Self-admitted Incompetent Attorney Ward declared that this does not work any infringementy infringement upon the Constitutional Rights of "We the People". I believe Attorney Ward is acting in Bad-Faith & Malice upon this matter, & that he cares not for the welfare of "We the People" of this State of Oregon or Clackamas County. It is impossible for the Constitutional Judicial Power of these Courts to be removed (as herein admitted) without this negatively impacting the "Rights" of "We the People". Just look at the exploding prison population. Oregon is certainly carrying its carrying its share within this nation, & this nation is well recognized has having higher percentages of prisoners that any other nation on the planet. Many lives are destroyed & tears are shed by these purposefully obscured facts concerning the modern Mal-functioning of the "Administration of Justice" within this State of Oregon.    Digression ended.

            Article 4 Section 23 of Oregon's Constitution takes itution takes the initiative of compiling an exhaustive listing of examples of what is meant by their "Local & Special Laws Prohibited" section. The framers of Oregon's Constitution had seen the mistakes of other States, & many of those states did not take the time to spell-out where the "Chains of the Constitution" precisely were to limit the elephant of their State's Civil Governments. Oregon's Constitutional Framers made no such mistake, but they went into fairly exhaustive itemizatioive itemization of what was a "Local & Special Law" beyond which the Civil Government could not exercise its Law, making powers. They did this so that "We the People" as their Posterity would have that "Free Government" sought to be preserved for us by them in Article 1 Section 1.
            We have photo-copies of all of these citations. When in a meeting designed to "Get to the Bottom of This", progress will be made by all Honorablell Honorable People upon these matters quickly. There is No Room for "Reasonable People" to mis-understand these things. A degree from a Law School is not necessary to comprehending these fundamental concepts concerning how the
Governing Authorities have been arranged under the Constitution of this "State of Oregon".

            By way of The Heckmans placing their Verbal Sworn Felony Criminal Complaint before you Commissioner/JudCommissioner/Judges, this act has caused a "Motion" under "Due Course & Process of Law" before you Commissioners certain "Duties" to "We the People" of Clackamas County to Act as "Justices of the Peace" &/or "County Judges". Hereunder, (we contend) you
Commissioner/Judges have the "Duty" of bringing the full merits of the accusation thereby placed before you to a full & Conscionable State of "Justice". Hereunder, we respectfully demanded that you Commissioner-Judges do (what we sino (what we sincerely believe to be) your "Duty" to "Administer Justice" between (on the one hand), the Heckmans, the County, & the State; & (on
the other hand) those municipal employees of Milwaukie complained to be Acting Beyond their Constitutionally Lawful Authority to commit Public General-Law Felony-Crimes " Breaches of the Peace" against the State, County, & the Heckmans.
            It was respectfully demanded afully demanded at this October 20th Open Forum meeting that you Commissioner-Judges act in "Good Faith" to follow that "Due Course & Process of Law" with regard to the Heckman case; & that you do so "Without Delay", precisely as is recognizable under Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of this "State of Oregon". Our belief that you
Commissioners have these "Duties" to "We the People" of this State & County is supported by Oregon Revised Statutes, which seem to us to set this f to set this forth quite clearly, as follows:
            203.111 : Unless otherwise provided by county charter, a county court shall be the governing body and shall exercise general legislative authority over all matters of county concern and shall consist of the county judge and two county commissioners and a majority of those persons shall constitute a quorum.
  size=-1>                203.230 : (1) The county court of any county which has not adopted a county charter ... and in which the county judge has no judicial function, may order the office of county judge abolished and create in lieu thereof a third county commissioner. The order shall transfer all powers and duties of the county court and county judge to the board of county commissioners
                203.240 : (1) A board of county commissioners shall: (a) Have the powers and duties and be otherwise subject to the laws applicable to county courts sitting for the transaction of county business.

            Clackamas County has Not adopted a "Cadopted a "County Charter"; so as clearly recognized in ORS 203.111, the "County Court" is still the "Governing Body" of Clackamas County. While allowing some wiggle-room for a name change to the "County Commissioners", the other statutes set forth above clearly preserve that the "Commissioners" have the Statutorily
Recognizable "Duties" to "We the People" of this State & County, to fulfill the "Duties of the County Court & County Judge".
      &nbnbsp;       A Law School Education is Not Necessary to comprehend what these words mean. We didn't write these words. The Legislative Assembly of the Civil Government of this "State of Oregon" wrote these words because they were under Obligatory "Duty" to write it this way. This is because hereby they follow the "Original Constitutional Intent", & to substantively write it
any other way would be effective Treason against this "State of Oregon".
 &".
            Photo-Copies from the above described statutes & argument explaining these precise matters were delivered to both you & Commissioner/Judge Kennemier during the October "Open Forum" meeting where-under the Heckmans presented their Sworn Felony Criminal Complaint. The "Duties" of you commissioners to function as a "County Court" were clearly
shown then & there.

       &nbnbsp;      In our efforts at simplifying our first-step question in following the "Due Course & Process of Law" in this matter, both camps need to come together to "Reason" upon whether you Commissioners have the "Duties" to act as the "County Court". Though previously verbally communicated very clearly to you Commissioner/Judges in each of our previous visits, this first-
step-question-focus was clearly spelled out previously in the 9-page fax sent to you dated to you dated December 6th. Therein we took the Liberty of simplifying this first-step question to the following two very simple "Yes or No Questions":

1: "Is the "Clackamas County Commissioners" the "Governing Body" of "Clackamas County", as is recognizable from within ORS 203.111?

2: "When a Felony Criminal-Complaint is placed before them; Does the "Governing-Body" of the County have a "Duty" to "We the People" of Claople" of Clackamas County to Act as Judges in a "Court of Justice" (Article 4 Section 23, Oregon Constitution) for the historically recognizable "County Court" (Article 7 (original) Section 1); & to thereunder follow that "Due Course & Process of Law" (as in essence in Article 1 Section 10) all so as to bring the entire matter to a Naturally Conscionable sense of "Justice"?

            Giving us these two simple "Yes o simple "Yes or No Answers" should Not be a large Burden upon you Commissioners. Rendering the simple "Yes or No Answers" to these two simple questions is the Pivotal Issue before all Honorable Persons concerned with these matters. Addressing these two questions is our first-step in following that "Due Course & Process of Law". The first question here is to find out if the Forum has the "Duty" of "Administering Justice" for those bringing forth the complaint.
    &nbnbsp;         If the answer to these questions is "No", then once we are "Reasonably" Informed in "Good Faith" of this reality of "Law", then "Due Course & Process of Law" makes it obligatory upon ourselves to cease & desist from "Disturbing the Peace" in your Vicinity, to cease our noise-makings, & to go some-where-else in our perceived concerns for securing Justice". Here-
under, it is clearly in the best interests of obtaining "Peace" foing "Peace" for you commissioners to secure Answers to these two simple questions by way of placing such supposedly well "Reasoned" Evidence of applicable "Law" upon the table in Public Inspection. Thereby you will facilitate the clear & public establishment of the purported "Good Reason" why we should take our search for
"Remedy" elsewhere than at your forum. These questions are very simple "Yes or No Questions". You commissioners should be outraged that your "legal council" is havinguncil" is having such time consuming troubles answering such two simple questions.

            With regard to the "Material Issues" involved within the Heckman Felony Criminal Complaint, & the present positions held thereby of Attorney Ward & Commissioner Kennemier to the effect that the Commissioners do Not have any such "Duty" under "Law" to "Administer Justice" within this County for the Heckmans, If any commissioners, attorneys rs, attorneys or any others act
or fail to act in any manner which would effect an "Obstruction" or "Hindering" of the proper unfoldment of the "Due Course & Process of Law" with regard to these "Material Issues, & they do so without attempting to enter into "Good-Faith Reasoning" with other "Reasonable" members of "We the People" as to the basis in "Law" for their actions in a Timely Manner such as is respectfully Demanded herein & previously; then they are committing the Class ing the Class C Felony Crime of "Hindering Prosecution" against the Heckamans, the County, & the State, as recognizable under ORS 162.325.
            Answers & a Meeting to "Get to the Bottom of This" needs to be forthcoming "Without Delay".

            Attorney Ward has affirmed in essence that he "Does Not Know what the Original Intent was behind Oregon's hind Oregon's Constitution". This makes Attorney Ward a self-admitted Incompetent (at best) upon Oregon's Constitutional Law. Those commissioners who may choose to support the hinging of the public-policy of the governing-body of Clackamas County upon the council of such a self-admitted Incompetent are taking sides to Alienate "We the People" (who compose the body-politic which constitutes both Clackamas County & the State of Oregon) from the "Law" which is Constitutionally formulated to proteted to protect Us.
            This is an "Offence against the State & Public Justice" as recognizable in ORS Chapter 162, where-under the "Hindering Prosecution" statute lies.

            If you commissioners but merely secure these simple answers for us, then all of us so seeking Remedy before the "County Court for the "Injury Done" to us will no longer have any "Reason" tany "Reason" to be wasting any more of the time & energy of you commissioners & your self-admitted Incompetent legal-council concerning these matters.

            We think we are right & that Attorney Ward & Commissioner Kennemier are in error. We think that this recent reliance upon Attorney Ward is a self-serving delaying-tactic by the powerful Bar Association to improperly influence you commissioners to surrender to therrender to them the ability of "We the People" to secure such "Local-Self-Governing" within this County as would truly Respect our Un-Alienable Rights, as Originally was Constitutionally Intended. You Commissioners are clearly "Public-Servants" who are Sworn by Oath of Office to uphold the Article 1 Section 10 Oregon Constitutional Principles of Administering "Due Course & Process of Law" in a manner which is "Without Delay", all to the best of your ability. This makes it obligatory that if atory that if we truly be in error, that you "Support the Constitution" & the "Rights" of "We the People" (hereunder), by making the time to enter into "Good Faith" discussions so that the supposedly superior "Reasoning" upon which you base your conclusions may be made clear to "We the People" concerned herewith, & thereunder we may then pursue our Remedies in the
more Constitutionally appropriate forum.
            The Con  The Constitution requires at Article 1 Section 1 that all "Public Servants" support the "Peace, Safety & Happiness" of "We the People" of this State. Article 1 Section 7 Commands that they be "Bound by Conscience". Any failure to enter into "Good-Faith" discussions with "We the People" over precisely what are the Constitutionally Recognizable "Duties" which you
commissioners Owe to "We the People", will clearly cause us to "Reasonably" become disturbed in our "Peace, Safety & Safety & Happiness". Hereunder, such commissioners as may be partaking in such boycott of honest & open communications would be in Un-Conscionable Breach of their Constitutionally recognizable "Duties" to "We the People".

            During the private November 15th meeting (between yourself, myself & some supporters for a return to this as the believed Only form of Lawful County Government) we asked if you considered Commissidered Commissioner Kennemier's & Attorney Ward's Response to the Heckmans Felony Criminal Complaint to be an "Adequate Response". If memory serves us correctly, you therein agreed that the answer to this question was "No".
            We were exhaled to find a County Commissioner who seemed to have the Spiritual-Advancement & Moral-Fiber to take a Courageous Stand for Truth & Justice. We still hold high hopes in this area sin this area sir. At this private meeting, we shared close to a full hour or so in presenting additional in-depth evidence to you of precisely why Commissioner Kennemier's relying upon
Attorney Ward was Wrong.
            In fact, then as in the October meeting & in the 9 page fax of December 6th, we consistently emphasized that a reliance by any commissioner upon Attorneys of any sort when the "Reasoning" upon the Constitutional onstitutional Law applicable to the matter was clear, was in essence a placing of their dependency upon attorneys above their Oath to uphold the Constitution.
            God gave you commissioners brains & functional Consciences. You commissioners were taught to read competently about 4th grade. These things may be "Reasoned" upon by men of any small degree of Leadership Capability. Reliance upon attorneys when these things are so phings are so plain is "clear & convincing evidence" that there is no such real substantive need to be so reliant, but rather this is effectively deteriorating into an inbreeding of Private Special-Interests to sacrifice the general-welfare of "We the People" of this County & State.

            We went on to show why the County Commissioners have the "Duty" to act as the "County Court" in such cases as these. You affirmed that you rmed that you recognized that we had powerful arguments, & you seemed impressed with the our extensive documentation concerning applicable "Law" upon these matters. Hereunder, we seemed to make much progress towards a
"meeting of the minds".
            You did make it clear that you were "reserving judgement" as to the applicability of the "Law" as we were presenting it to you regarding this entire matter. We felt this was undelt this was understandable & "Reasonable"; & we were just delighted to have established communications with someone in position of authority who seemed to be predisposed towards exercising "Good
Faith" efforts in bringing our concerns to "Justice".

            We presented our request that you facilitate the bringing together of a "face to face" meeting with the full body of the Commissioner/Judges, & all parties concerned ies concerned with these matters, within adequate time & room-space allowances, & all so-as to facilitate the ability of all "Reasonable People" present therein to "Get to the Bottom" of these concerns. We again
emphasized the "Without Delay" Article 1 Section 10 Oregon Constitutional requirement governing these matters, as well as the Common-Law/County-Law Maxim that "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied". You hereunder gracefully & honorably agreed that there was a serious need to "us need to "Get to the Bottom of This" in a Comprehensive & Timely manner. Hereunder, you affirmed
that you would exercise "Good Faith" in accommodating this request of ours to the best of your ability, but you went on to explain that the calendar of events for the Commissioners would not allow for you to facilitate the bringing of such a meeting together until early December.
            We were again delighted merely to have erely to have found what we believed to be an Honorable Man who was Truly Concerned about respecting his "Duty" to protect Peoples "Rights" as recognizable under Oregon's Constitution, & thereunder, the wait until Early December was tolerable. In affirmation of these concerns the December 9-page fax we sent stated as follows:
            "We hereunder ask that you arrange a Meeting so as to effectively address the Meaddress the Merits of what we believe to be the basic Central Issues presently before you Commissioner/Judges with regard to this entire matter."

            This was merely a "hard-copy" repeating of the verbal request we placed before you during our private November 15th meeting, in efforts to assist you in facilitating the bringing together of the County Commissioner/Judges to address these concerns.

   &sp;           It is now early January.
            Our calls to your office have been met by your praiseworthy assistant "Jenny VanLou (sp?) & yourself with basic courtesy & honor.
            You have clearly seen fit to exercise your agreed upon discretion to distribute the December 6th 9-page fax among the other commissiother commissioners & legal council.
            We have been informed that the "Legal Council" desires Time to Respond to the fax.
            Over reservations, & in our desire to retain a Godly & humble-spirit, & to exhaust the "Pathway of Peace" in these matters, we saw no substantial harm in allowing some "Reasonable Time" for the legal-council to respond to to respond to these matters. The two threshold questions of essence to the entire concern here were clearly spelled out in simple "Yes or No" format, so we
Reasoned that this would be a short wait. Memory seems to indicate that Jenny also affirmed that a short wait was all that was needed, & besides it would lay good ground-work for the surely not-forgotten promise for a meeting to "Get to the Bottom of This".
            By wsp;  By way of constant checking by phone with your office, we later learned with great disappointment that Myles Ward was again the "Legal Council" to whom this matter has been once again entrusted. Both the previous 9-page fax & our November meeting emphatically affirmed that Myles Ward was a self-admitted Incompetent with regard to Original
Constitutional Intent, & who did "Not Believe in Yes or No Answers" to questions concerning these matters. We are in the dark as to whethers to whether this was your decision to again entrust these matters to the self-admitted Incompetent Attorney Ward, or if it was a decision which was out of your hands. We hereby respectfully request that we be informed as to who made the decision to
once again allow the "Without Delay" unfoldment of the "Due Course & Process of Law" to Administer Justice for the Heckamns, to once again become "Delayed" by the involvement of Self-Admitted Incompetent Attorney Ward.

  &n

            We are now clearly at a stage where even waiting for the Self-Admitted Incompetent Attorney Ward to surprise us with revealing some previously well-hidden Competency, is now clearly beyond the pale. Attorney Ward is now "Sick", & it seems that there are no other legal council willing or able to address this manufactured concern that "Legal Council" be involved in setting forth a written response before our promised meeting to "meeting to "Get to the Bottom of This" comes together.

            Meanwhile, the Heckmans & many others similar are being "Denied Justice" within this County regard to their Felony Criminal Complaints ongoing for over 3 months now. This Denial of Justice is Not Tolerable under Constitutional Law. "We the People" do Not have to Settle for This. The "Law" of both the Constitution & Statutes say so.

    &np;          By way of both the October meeting & the 9 page fax, our strenuous objection to any continued dependency on Self-Admitted Incompetent Attorney Ward for Answers concerning these matters was clearly communicated. Both of these communications further clearly objected to becoming entangled in more time wasting "Circular Arguments" by any such other
incompetent or bad-faith legal-council as may similarly imitate the non-functional Conscietional Conscience of Attorney Ward. The previously not agreed to dependency upon the attorneys in this matter has deteriorated these "Good Faith " efforts into a Circus. There are many people looking to myself (Charles Stewart) for answers to these simple questions. You, Commissioner Sowa ,are also
being looked to by these ones as a greatly important person who is sincerely hopped to possess the spiritual resources necessary to bring these simple Answers to "We the People".

  

            We see absolutely no "Good Faith" progress having been made with regard to these crying needs since these attorneys have become involved. These are simple "Yes or No  Questions". We have become dependant upon an attorney who does Not know what the "Original Intent" of Oregon's Constitution is, & he "Does Not Believe in Yes or No Answers". We have tapes of this over-paid Incompetent admitting to these things. He hangs up He hangs up on people when seeking to resolve these matters by phone. This is clear evidence of "Bad-Faith".

            Sir, "We the People" of this County & State are more important than the self-serving agenda of a few hundred members of the lawyers "Bar Association" Monopoly. "We the People" can Responsibly "Self-Govern" without any need for Bar- Association lawyers. The recent continued reliance upon Attorney Ward has clearlyWard has clearly allowed these communications to deteriorate into an effective Rudeness to the concerns for "Without Delay" Justice for the Heckmans.

            Our original agreement was not with the Attorneys, Sir; it was with you. Therein you affirmed that you would exercise "Good Faith" to attempt to bring together a meeting in Early December to "Get to the Bottom of This".

              Thereunder, we resolved to wait patiently while the Heckmans & many others similar
continue to suffer, while you pursued the Honorable Response of bringing together a general
Commissioner/Judge meeting to "Get to the Bottom of This".

            We herein respectfully communicate to you good sir, that this reliance upon goof-ball Attorneys has resulted in an incompetent Squandering of precious Time resourus Time resources. The "Without Delay" mandate of Oregon's Constitution is being reduced to toilet-paper for Attorney Ward. We involved in the Heckman Case & many others similar have certain "Duties" before that "Almighty God" (as referred to in Article 1 Section 2 of Oregon's Constitution) to follow the "Dictates of our own Consciences" in this matter. Indeed, it is our "Duty" also as honorable members of the "Social Compact" of the "State of Oregon & of "Clackamas County" & under Natp; under Natural Law to exercise our "Natural Right" to insure that "Justice" be secured "Without Delay"
for such believed to be "Injured" People as the Heckmans & many others similar, all precisely as affirmed in Article 1 Sections 3 & 10.

            If some of the commissioners or attorneys or others should choose to follow such actions which could reasonably be construed as "Obstruction of Justice" (as it easily coul(as it easily could), this is statutorily recognizable at ORS 162.325 as "Hindering Prosecution", which is a "Class C Felony". If Sworn Testimony is progressed into with regard to a "Material Issue" (as is quite
possible with the Heckman case pending), 162.065 recognizes that more "Class C Felony" crimes are recognizable by way of charges "Perjury".

            Oregon's Constitution at Article 1 Section 1 affirms that "All Power is inherent is inherent in the People". Statutes recognize the authority hereunder for any member of the public to make a "Citizens Arrest" at any time whenever he sees a Crime being committed. In the modern political climate of centralized authority, any such attempt to exercise this Lawful Power against a Judge, Police Officer, Sheriff's Deputy, Sheriff, Commissioner, or other prominent Public-Servant would probably result in that individual summarily having the stuffing beaten out of him, & this w, & this without even a pretense of concern by such uniformed criminals for applicable "Law". However, such Naziism would have significantly greater difficulties sweeping such institutionalized Criminal Behavior under the carpet when it comes to dealing with the Peoples Elected "Constables".
            Research shows that the "Constable" may be elected by any 10 heads of households. He is the Officer of a "Township", & the word amp; the word "Town" is related to "Tithing" which in turn is related to the word "Ten". It gets back to Mosaic Law in Exodus 18 & Deuteronomy 1 where Moses told the Nation of Israel to appoint among themselves Captains over 1000's, 100's, 50's, & 10's. This practice was carried on within "Christian Nations" such as the "Anglo-Saxons". The American County is well recognized as being Modeled upon these Anglo-Saxon concepts.
          &;    Oregon's Constitution recognizes that the "Constable" is beyond the Civil Lawmaking authority of the State at Article 4 Section 23, where-under this "Special & Local Laws Prohibited" section preserves these Common-Law Powers to the Counties, Precincts, & Townships. Hereunder, Article 1 Section 1 of Oregon's Constitution stating that "All Power is Inherent in the People", becomes much more than empty ramblings by dead men. It becomes hereunder a most seriously effectivously effective "Tool of Law" for the People themselves to secure Naturally Conscionable "Justice".

            ORS 133.005 & 161.015 both affirm that "Peace Officer means ... Constable".
            ORS 133.033 affirms that every "Peace Officer" has authority to perform "Community Care-taking Functions".

            Henbsp;  Hereunder, when the Heckmans or others similar enter into a "Special-Township" "Social-Compact" with 9 other household-heads & thereunder elect their own "Constable/Peace-Officer", such a "Constable/Peace-Officer" would be statutorily recognizable as having authority in Law to Arrest all persons who committed Crimes which "Disturbed the Peace" of those within their Jurisdiction. This would include the Felony Crimes of Hindering Prosecution & Perjury. A phrase which is substantiis substantially similar to this is as follows:
            "Obstructing Process ... "This is an offence against public justice of a very high and presumptuous nature ... . A person opposing an arrest upon criminal process becomes thereby particeps criminis; that is, an accessory in felony, & a principle in high treason. 4 Blackstone, Comm. 128 ..." Boviers Law Dictionary 1870.

   &nb;           If it can be done so as not to interfere with the progress towards answering the two simple pivotal questions presented herein, then please ask self-admitted Incompetent Attorney Ward (or other "legal-council") to respond to the merits of these propositions of applicable "Law" also.

            Once again sir, we need a meeting to "Get to the Bottom of This" - "Without DelaWithout Delay".
 

            Thank you again for your efforts regarding this noble cause Commissioner/ Judge Sowa .
 
 
 

Yours Truly,
 
 
 
 
 

_______________________________________
Charles Bruce, Stewart;
Email: charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org mmonlaw-gov.org