Clackamas County Lawful Government Alliance
CO: Charles Bruce, Stewart
39275 Hood St., # D
Sandy Oregon [97055]
February 25, 2000

Ris Bradshaw, Clackamas County Sheriff
Pat Detloff, Clackamas County Sheriff's Chief Deputy

Sheriff Bradshaw & Chief Deputy Detloff,
On behalf of "We the People" of Clackamas County, I thank you for your letter dated February 1, 2000, which was in response to our letters of January 21st, & 31st , 2000. In your letter you stated:
            "I have read and studied your letters to me and copies of those to the commissioners. ... You do make some very interesting points and ask some specific questions. I will try to respond effectively to each.

            Hereunder, you show a degree of Integrity & Honor vastly superior to that of Attorney Ward & the Commissioners. Unlike them, you at least main some "Plausible Denial" capabilities with regard to any serious "Bad Faith" on your part. The Commissioners & their Attorney Ward have clearly abandoned any such concerns.
            It is clear to us that the "Powers that Be" are placing Pressure upon you & the Commissioners to Compromise your Integrity to your Oaths to uphold the Constitution of the State of Oregon & the United States of America. It is clear that such Powers have succeeded in house-training the Commissioners of this County. We recognize that your more open communications patterns here must place very stressful Pressures on you, & hereunder we recognize some degree of Integrity in your communications. Perhaps it is because by way of your job, you are more fully aware of the most serious effects of the Administration of the Force of the State upon various persons involved therein which causes you to be more respectful of applicable "Law" than the Commissioners & their Self-Admitted Incompetent Attorney. We don't really care about why your maintaining this more Honorable degree of Communications with "We the People" of this County. We merely hope sincerely that such continues.
            However, merely being superior to Attorney Ward & the Commissioners fails to earn you any Badge of Courage. Such degrees of superior Integrity to those ones would probably be found by drawing names out of a hat of people patronizing local bars. In particular, you disappointingly brief page & a half letter falls short of serious Courage in Concern for "Lawful Government & the General Welfare of "We the People" of this County because of some specific statements, & because of lack of addressing critical issues clearly previously presented. You said:
            "It is clear to me that you have beliefs and interpretations of law with which I do not agree."

            This seems to be your only effort at addressing our basic concerns previously exhaustively set forth indicating that we find Serious Problems in how "Law" is being Fundamentally Interpreted & Applied in this County. With a few praiseworthy exceptions, you seem to tie up the volumes of concerns we have expressed to you & the Commissioners with this single sentence. These volumes of well documented & articulated concerns, we feel deserve more than your brief single sentence wholesale dismissal here, sir. You go on to indicate a pre-judgement from yourself that further communications with our people would tail-spin down-wardly into "Counter-productive ... Debate". Your words of gloom were as follows:
            I'm not going to try to debate the law with you believing that it would be counterproductive.

            With all due respect sir, we are merely concerned with Constitutionally "Lawful Government". We don't believe we have indicated otherwise in any of our communications. We have approached you in terms of Respect.
            You Respond by Accusing Us herein of prejudicing honorable discussion by being inclined towards "Counter-productive ... Debate". You have set forth No specific Reasons as to WHY you have presumed us to be so Evilly Inclined, or so Dangerous to Constructive Discussion. You merely assert that we are such a sort of Infidel as this, & that you will marginally tolerate us with guarded & limited discussions of the merits of these most serious concerns. You do not specify any specific wording or action on our part which supports such prejudice towards us by yourself in this matter. You arrive at this in an apparently "Summary" manner, as does "Military" Personnel when they are governing conquered territories. All this would be proper, If there were some form of Extra-Constitutional EMERGENCY, under which you are operating. Yet, you seem to deny any "Emergency" as being a possible Justification for your proceeding in this apparently Militaristicly "Summary" Manner, all so-as-to so prejudicially condemn us as "Counterproductive ... Debaters".
        You continue:
        ... I'll begin with the questions posted in your letter of January 21st.
        Virtually all societies have move(d) a long ways from the ancient forms of law and law enforcement that you describe under item (2) of your letter. I do not recognize the existence of "constables" as you describe, or the "posse comitatus".

            This was your brief answer to our painstakingly documented points previously extensively set forth. A part of these "Constables" materials ended with the following:
     was your brief answer to our painstakingly documented points previously extensively set forth. A part of these "Constables" materials ended with the following:
            Hereunder, we respectfully ask you that upon presentment of signatures from the heads of 10 House-holds of self-election of a Constable, that your Sheriff's Office automatically issue a Certificate (as opposed to a "licence") to said "Constable" for both Un-Concealed & Concealed Weaponry Carrying, for entry into the Court-House while so armed, & for making arrests therein, when such is "Lawful"; & for admonitions of deference to saiference to said "Constable" by all persons who may become concerned with his activities as in the same manner as your own Deputy Sheriff's are presently entitled to.

         You Failed to Respond to this request from us, sir. Your statement:
            "I do not recognize the existence of "constables" as you describe ..."
     sp;       seems to indicate desire to avoid addressing the essence of our concerns. You elsewhere marginally expand upon this issue with the following words:
            Again I do not recognize any authority specific to "constables" acting beyond the rights of every other citizen. Any "constable" attempting to take inappropriate action under Oregon law will face potential civil and/or crimiand/or criminal liability."

            With all due respect, sir; this sounds like the words of a forked-tongued Attorney, not of a well seasoned & patriotic American "Peace-Officer". These words boil-down to NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The Caveats of "Acting Beyond the Rights of Every Other Citizen" & "Attempting to Take Inappropriate Action", these render totally meaningless these responses. We are not asking for asking for ability to "Act Beyond the Rights of Every Other Citizen", or to "Attempt to Take Inappropriate Action". We are asking to proceed as "Constables" in precise similar manner as also is the same "Right of Every Other Citizen". Our "Constables" intend Only to Take "Lawfully Appropriate Action". This was clear from our wording.
            These kinds of Babylonian-Pharisaical Deceptions may work for the Attorneys who perform thwho perform their Inbred stage-rehearsed Shadow-Dancing in front a morally-compromised Judge, but they do Not Work before Men of well-Grounded Common-Sense & Honor. Please tell your Attorneys to just keep their "damage-control" meddlings out of your communications with us hence-forth, sir. They catastrophically damage your ability to walk the Credibility-Line between the "Powers that Be" & "We the People". They compromise you in favor of the former, to the point that the latter can no long can no longer see any "Good-Faith" on your part.
            We would be very surprised if a man who works with the actual "Force" of the Law, such as yourself; actually believed that such answers as this were actually capable of swaying the minds of marginally intelligent Men. Such gobbledygook as above here can be vastly improved upon by a man of minimal Common-Sense & Integrity. It takes a Law School Graduate to become self-i become self-induced into such Intellectually-Inbred ways of thinking so-as-to allow such Trash as this above to actually be transmitted as a Plausible Answer to such serious questions as these.
                                                                     Attorney Ward hasn't been assisting you here has he?

            On February 15th of this year, between the hours of 1:30 & 2:00 pm, our group met in "Study Session" before the Clackamas County Commissioners & Attorney Ward. We therein presented Evidence Establishing Conclusively that there is a very real Necessity l Necessity to Return to a Constitutionally Lawful Government within this County. We set forth vast amounts of photo-copies from textbooks, Law Dictionaries, Oregon Statutes & Constitution, & other many sources before them. Our verbal presentation delved into serious depth of discussions of Law, within the limited time frame they allowed us. We set forth many seriously confrontational issues, yet for the most part we skirted making direct confrontation with them, preferring instead mer instead merely to repeatedly beseech them to join with us in working towards the Remedy to the clearly shown & un-controverted departures from Constitutionally Lawful Government. We maintained this non-confrontational posture fairly-well at least up-until they again "Stonewalled" us. At that point, we presented them with "Treason" Indictments against them. Copies of the Indictment & the Transcript of that meeting should be in accompaniment hereto.
              But therein, Attorney Ward did have the where-with-all to note the seriousness of the Power-Decentralizeing implications behind our proposition that any 10 heads-of-households can elect a "Constable"; & thereunder said "Constable" may perform all the functions of a Statutorily Recognizable "Peace Officer". While the two minor commissioners were complacently pretending to be concerned, & Commissioner Kennemer was complaining about his "Right to s "Right to be free from Harassment", Attorney Ward broke his normal posture of Kennemier Supporting "Yes-Man", to jump in and state:
            "... there's No Statute that says 10 People can Elect a Constable."

            Yes. Attorney Ward Broke Form to pursue this most serious line of discussion. We got derailed from the subject at this point, & this point, & they insist on continuing their Policy of "Stonewalling" us, so that was the end of that discussion. However; Attorney Ward knows that you & other Lawful "Peace Officers" of this County hold the Real Power. While Attorney Ward has monumental Morality/Ethical Faults, he is Not Stupid. He's not off in Disneyland, like the Commissioners seem to be. He picked up on this issue as soon as it was mentioned.
            ;   And tho we have set forth much documentation on the "Constables" issue already, we do not believe we have yet presented to you the following citations in their full text. Hereunder, Attorney Ward's specific comments should become fairly fully addressed, as follows:
           Black's Law Dictionary; Fifth Edition, 1979. West Publishing Co.,ublishing Co., St Paul Minn.
            "Tithing Man: A constable. ... annually elected to preserve order ... and to make complaint of any dis-orderly conduct. ... the head or chief of a tithing or decennary of ten families; he was to decide all lesser causes between neighbors. In modern English Law, he is the same as an under-cas an under-constableor peace-officer."
            "Tithing: One of the civil divisions of England, being a portion of the greater division called a "hundred". It was so called because ten freeholders with their families composed one. It is said that they were all knit together in one society, and bound ... for the peaceable behaviaceable behavior of each other. In each of these societies there was one chief or principle person, who, from his office, was called "teothing-man" now "tithing-man".
           Decanatus: A deaconry. A company of ten persons. Also a town or tithing consisting originally of ten families of freeholders. Ten tithings compose a hungs compose a hundred.
           Decanus: In Ecclesiastical & old European law, an officer having supervision over ten, a dean. A term applied not only to ecclesiastical, but to civil and military, officers. An officer among the Saxons who presidedover a friborg, tithing, decannary, or association of ten inhabitantten inhabitants; otherwise called a "tithing man" or "borsholder", his duties being those of an inferior judicial officer. Decanus militarius; a military officer having command of ten soldiers. In Roman law, an officer having the command of a company ... of ten soldiers.

Exodus 18:
              13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. 14 And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? 15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquirme to enquire of God: 16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
            17 And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heng is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone. 19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
        20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

        21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: 22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great mattevery great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee. 23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace.
        24 So Moses hearkened to the voice oto the voice of his father in law, and did all that he had said. 25 And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 26 And they judged the people at all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves. 27 And Moses let his father in law depart; and he went his way into his own own land.

Deuteronomy 1:
            5 ... Moses to declare this law, saying, 6 The LORD our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying ... 12 How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? 13 Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
            14 And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. 15 So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, anifties
, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
            16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. 17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the smallar the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
            18 And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do."

    bsp;          Yes, Sheriff Bradshaw & Deputy Detloff; each of the above Old Testament Christian/ /Judeo Biblical References clearly establishes that units of "Ten's" are the smaller self-governing entity which was practiced among Godly People 3400 years ago. Further, this precise same model was the Common practice (Law) under pre-1066 ad "Norman-Conquest" England; & much survived thereafter by way of Magna Charta & other heroic efforts also.fforts also. The fact that the pre-revolutionary England as well as the Framers of the Constitutions of the United States & Oregon had monumental Respect for these Biblical Passages, all shows why these "Laws" have been incorporated into current American Constitutional "Law". The Black's Law Dictionary Citations affirms these realities. Those Citations clearly show that the term "Constable" is properly applicable to the self-governing, self-elected Leader of any 10 Household Unit of "Good &a of "Good & Lawful" People.
            If you have reputable source citations which plausibly controvert this "Evidence" of applicable "Law", then we respectfully Demand that you set it forth before us in a timely manner. When we begin to move forward with our "Constables" as Statutorily Recognizable "Peace Officers", so-as-to Arrest Treasonously Corrupt Public-Officials; that time will then be vel then be very late of a time to finally enter into "Good Faith" discussions of these most critically important matters. If you intend to direct your Deputy Sheriff's to Oppose our Constable - Peace Officers as they attempt to make these Lawful Arrests, you need to set forth your Basis in "Law" for such Policy, Soon; & in a Well Reasoned & Timely Manner, sir. Such is Necessary in order to preserve your safety-valve of being able to plausibly argue "Good Faith" behind your actions. If y actions. If you Stonewall us, as the Commissioners have done; then "Good Faith" behind your actions will be very hard to convince the Jury of when they eventually try you of any Criminal Charges related to these matters which may be brought against you.
            For you to pursue any other course, is to risk some possibly very embarrassing situations in which your Deputies & our Constables could ables could be ungracefully wrestling around in the center of the courtroom floor; all in front of God & the General Public. And of course, that is a minimally damaging/embarrassment scenario. If after previously Avoiding "Good Faith" Deliberations- -Communications with the other "Peace Officers" so-as-to Establish applicable Guidelines founded upon well-settled Principles of "Law" for "Governing" these situations; one of those "Peace Officers" actually is so afflicted with such abysmal Sth abysmal Stupidity as to actually draw deadly-force upon the other groups "Peace Officers"; then the damage resulting therefrom would be construable as a Felony-Crime of the Highest Sort. Citations relevant hereto read as follows:

Obstructing Process:
            The act by which one or more persons attempt to prempt to prevent, or do prevent, the execution of lawful process. The Officer must be prevented by actual violence, or by threatened violence accompanied by the exercise of Force, or by those having capacity to employ it, by which the officer is prevented from executing his writ. The officer is not required to expose his person by a physical conflict with the offender. 2 Wash. C.C. 169. See 3 Wash. C.S. 355; 12 Ala. N.s. 199. This is an offence against public justice of a very high and presumpgh and presumptuous nature; and more particularly so where the obstruction is of an arrest upon criminal process. A person opposing an arrest upon criminal process becomes thereby particeps criminis ; that is, an accessory in felony, and a principal in high treason. 4 Blackstone, Comm. 128; 2 Hawkins, Pl.Cir.c.17, s.1; 1 Russell, Crimes, 360. See 2 Gal. C.C. 15; 2 Chitty, Crim. Law, 145, note a ; 3 Vt. 110; 25 id. 415; Strobh. So. C. 73; 15 Mo. 486. "Law Dictionary", by John Bovier; 1868 - 1870

Now in apparent attempts to respond to these issues, you stated:
            "Virtually all societies have move(d) a long ways from the ancient forms of law and law enforcement that you describe under item (2) of your letter."

 w Roman">            Again, with all due respect sir; this is Not the Point in Question. The Point in Question is: "What is "Lawful Government"?". As set forth in our January 21st letter to you:
            There is a US Senate Report No. 93.549, November-1973 in which "A Brief Hich "A Brief Historical Sketch of the Origins of Emergency Powers Now in Force" & "Emergency Powers Statutes" states as follows :
            "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitutionhave, in ave
, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency.  The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crisis, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crisis have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways shaped the present ppresent phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

            This problem has reached Oregon Law, as shown by the following:
            "State Ex Rel Madden V. Crawford (1956) 295 P.2d 174:
            ... under ss 1 of Art 7, as amended in 1910, the Supreme Court is the only court created by the Constitution itself; all other courts are to be created by legislative act. However, it was to prevent a hiatus in the administration of justice pending action by the legislature that the first portion of ss 2 of Art 7, as amended in 1910 was adop was adopted."

         You appear to attempt response to this issue with the following
            In item three (3) of your letter you discuss emergencies. This County now functions for emergencies under ordinance No. 17-98, a copy of which I am enclosing. At this time no emergencies are gencies are declared under the ordinance. Only occasionally have emergencies been declared, of short duration, in response to real or potential disasters, usually natural. The powers granted under section seven (7 ) have been used sparingly and have included subsections C, D, F, and H.

            This is Not an adequate "Good Faith" Response to the issues previously set forth, sir. You off, sir. You offered No Explanation as to Why the US Senate has Declared that a "Permanent State of National Emergency" is afflicting a "Majority of the People", & their Counties, within these United States of America. You offered No Explanation as to Why Oregon's Civil Supreme Court has declared that every Court other than the Civil Supreme Court, including all of Oregon's modern so-called "Circuit Courts", have all become "Created by the Legislature"; thus clearly Breaching that Article 3 Sectticle 3 Section 1 Mandated "Separation of Powers" Doctrine, which is so Necessary to the maintenance & preservation of all Constitutional Republics, & their "Lawful" forms of Government thereunder. Hereunder sir, the so-called "Circuit Courts" which your deputies routinely enforce the orders for, are Not of the "Judicial Department", as is Constitutionally Required of them under Articles 3 & 7. By the admissions within these citations, & by actually observable practice, these sctice, these so-called "Courts" are revealed to be entirely devoid of "Administering Justice" in any manner even remotely recognizable as being "Constitutionally Lawful". Because of this Breach of the "Separation of Powers" Doctrine, these "Courts" are Not exercising any recognizably Constitutionally Lawful "Judicial Power". Without this Constitutionally Lawful "Judicial Power" in place, those unfortunate people who are being herded off into prison like human-cattle, are deprived of "Due Process "Due Process of Law" before they are so incarcerated. Herding people of into prison like human-cattle in a whole-sale manner under pretensions of "Lawful" authority is most egregious wrongdoing, sir.
            And it looks like that is exactly what you are involved in, sir.

            You further offered Nor offered No Explanation of the "Hiatus" which Oregon's Civil Supreme Court plainly declared to be in existence. This wording clearly infers an "Emergency".
            Your effective circumvention of these most critical issues seems clearly construeable as "Bad Faith", sir. We respectfully remind you that you are a "Public Servant", sir. Your under well-settled Principles of "Law" Governing "Master/ing "Master/Servant" Relations to "We the People", sir. "We the People" Demand that you place much More Effort into Composing more Reasonably Adequate Response to these Most Serious Questions; in the future, sir.

            You delve into "Ordinance No. 17-98". We thank you for the copy of that document, sir. We hadn't had that previously.
In your letter concerneter concerned there-with, you state:
                "At this time no emergencies are declared under the ordinance."

            The Ordinance itself is a Declaration of Emergency. At the bottom of the first page it is clearly stated:
                "WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners further found that an emergency situation exists in Clackamas County for the preservation of the public peace, safety and welfare of the citizenry of the County and that this ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately and hereby replace Ordinance No. 85-865."

            We didn't ask if there were Emergencies "Declared under the Ordinance". We asked if there were Any Emergencies in place in the County, What-So-Ever. Pardon our paranoia, however our experience with forked-tongued licentious bar-association attorneys has revealed that such technically defective wordings are precisely what such Infidels specialize in. Now with all due respect sir, "We the People" Demand that yomand that you declare whether there are Any Emergencies What-So-Ever presently being enforced by your Office in Clackamas County. And we further respectfully Demand that you issue Answer to this Question in a Timely & Scholarly Manner.
            You entirely Failed to Respond in any manner to our exhaustive efforts at explaining to you what "Constitutional Law" is all about in Oregon. We set thn. We set this forth as follows:

Malum Prohibitum v Malum in Se:
            "Law" comes from God, Sheriff (Bradshaw); precisely as set forth in the Blackstone citation above. This is affirmed by Article 1 Section 2 of Oregon's Constitution, specifically referencing "Almighty God". Thereunder, & in Sections in Sections 3 & 7, that "Conscience" which flows from Him is Intended for the responsible self-governance of each of His People. The founders of this State knew this, & that is why they Repeated the term "Conscience" 3 times. This places this State firmly under "Malum in Se" or "Wrong in it's Self".
            "Malum Prohibitum" is a body of so-called "Law" which iLaw" which is clearly distinguishable here-from. It is Not "Law" based upon "Conscience" but is so-called "Law" based upon the Feared Administration of the Coercive Force of the State. This leads to all kinds of problems, some of which were addressed on the Nuremberg Trials of the Nazi Germans of World War 2.  Therein it was settled that following orders was not sufficient excuse to violate higher laws:
   p;           "Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950,  No. 82,  International Law Commission, United Nations, 1950.  Principle 4:
            The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Governmentor of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility undeity
under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

            Civil "Law" is Opposed to Natural Law & Common-Law, This is shown in the following :
           Barons Law Dictionary, Steven H. Gifts, Associate Ps, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Law, Newark; 1984, Barons Educational Series, Inc. Woodbury New York:
           Civil... refers to civil law as opposed to common law. ... Civil Law  Roman law embodied in the Justinian Code and presently prevailing in most western European States. ... The term may .. The term may also be used to distinguish that part of the law concerned with non-criminal matters, or may refer to the body of laws prescribed by the ... authority of the state, as opposed to Natural Law.

            The Civil Government was set up within Oregon & America because that was the best they knew how to do after the revolutionary war & other social ther social trauma. They knew it was "Less than Optimal" & that is why they "Bound it by the Chains of the Constitution". They knew "Civil" so-called "Law" was of Roman source & based thereunder on "Malum Prohibitum". They knew English "Common-Law" was better, because it more effectively respected the Rights of "We the People" to Responsibly "Self Govern".
          bsp;   ORS 131.205 is a "work-around" of these Constitutional Limitations of "Law". It has set up a specifically different "This State" of "Malum Prohibitum" which is "ABOVE" the Constitutional "State of Oregon". It reads:
        "As used in ORS 131.205 to 131.235, "this state" means the land and water and the air space above the land and water wiand water with respect to which the State of Oregon has legislative jurisdiction."

            This is an Artificial & Extra-Constitutional OVER-LAY, which allows for the "Madden v Crawford" "Separation of Powers" "Hiatus" Circumvention of Constitutional "Law" to be administered within this State . Here-under, the current Non-Existence of that Judicial "Department""Department" (as evidenced in Madden v Crawford, & which is Constitutionally Required by Article 3 Section 1) is no-longer a Treason problem for those quietly advancing this process, because they are not directly really messing with Constitutional Government, but rather they are merely gently descending over the land with their own Extra-Constitutional "Malum Prohibitum" Jurisdiction, while not actually directly addressing any issues forthcoming from "Constitutional" Government.
            Hereunder, the Civil Government exercises an Extra-Constitutional "Work-Around" of their Constitutionally Limited Authority under "Law" so-as-to now interfere with the Un-Alienable Rights of "We the People". For instance, many Rights which were "Originally Intended" to be "Liberties" Secured to "We the People", have been reduced to "Privileges", which are now dch are now dependant upon "Licence" from the Civil Government of the State. Just like open-entry into the Court-House, these "Licence" Requirements were Not Practiced under "Original Intent" of "Law" under the Constitutions of Oregon &  America. The "Law" has Not Changed. It has been Circumvented by way of a "Work-Around" coming into the Sovereignty of the Counties under guise of "Emergency". Many Private Special-Interest-Groups are profiting handsomely from their "Licence" & priv" & privilege hereunder.
            Some-how, some-where; changes have occurred in what the definition is of Constitutional "Law". A shift has occurred from "Malum in Se"  based "General Law" over to "Malum Prohibitum" based Private Special-Interest-Group "Law".  We have come to believe that this is being brought in under such artificial shell defacto governmecto governments as ORS 131.205; & by such declarations of Emergency as referred to in the US Senate Report. These "Emergencies" clearly affect "We the People" within each County in America, including Clackamas . Federal Policy & State Policy both recognize that each County has the responsibility to deal with their "Emergencies" in their own way.  ... "

            You entirely You entirely Failed to advance any Explanation for our exhaustive outlining of this problem sir. We showed herein clearly that there has been Gross Deviation from Originally Intended Constitutional Principles. You have effectively Fallen Silent on the matter sir. We respectfully Demand that you Break this Policy of Silence upon this matter sir. If you Fail to so Break the Silence, we may present this as Evidence before a Jury concerned herewith, as an Admission by yourself that you know full wellow full well that the matters expressed herein are entirely Truthful, & that your Knowing & Willful Failure to Respond to these most serious concerns; are, in like manner as the Commissioners; "Treasonous" in their essential nature.

            Going back & repeating the single sentence in your letter which may possibly be construed as some form of a response to these most important concerrtant concerns, you stated:
            "Virtually all societies have move(d) a long ways from the ancient forms of law and law enforcement that you describe under item (2) of your letter."

            Again with all due respect, sir; We didn't ask about Lawful "Societies". We asked. We asked about Lawful "Government". These modern "Governments" in America, are in departure from Constitutionally "Lawful" Forms of Government, precisely because of various "Permanent State(s) of National Emergency", precisely as set forth in this US Senate Report.
            Hereunder sir, your words seemingly inferring that somehow the Godly Commands to Moses, which have served God-Loving Men weoving Men well for 3400 years or so (all as practiced within "Christian Nations" such as Northern Europe & America, & clear into early Constitutional American & Oregon) all of this seems now from your words to have suddenly been "Improved Upon" within the last hundred years or so, seemingly by men of such purported Courage & Honor as Attorney Ward.
            Your position is untenabion is untenable before "Reasonable Men", sir.
            By your choice of words, you seem to be proposing that anything 51 % of those participating in the electoral process may decide to vote support for, may be deemed by Honorable Men to be "Law" within this State . You seem to be saying that the entire Constitution for this State of Oregon should be reduced to a single sentence that says that the Su that the Supreme Law in this Land will be whatever 51 % of the confused electorate say that it is. You seem to be saying that there are absolutely No Inherent Restraints over what Governmental Officers may do to "We the People", & that the concept of "Rights" in the individual members of the Body-Politic is something which can be revoked any time that 51 % of those voting decide that this is the best way for the Government to be run.
  &nbnbsp;           We would point out sir, that Adolph Hitler & Joseph Stalin had 51 % of their electorates behind their policies also. We would point out that the "Societies" of Adolph Hitler & Joseph Stalin did also "move a long ways from the ancient forms of law & law enforcement that (is) describe(d) under item (2) of (our group's) letter."
              As set forth in our earlier quotation from the previous letter, the Nuremberg Trials did well adjudicate that such acts to "move a long ways from the ancient forms of law & law enforcement that (we) describe(d) ... ." was Not considered as adequate Reason to stay the execution by hanging by the neck until dead of the Nazis who plead that such was Justification for the heinous acts of which they were accused.
   &;           We don't enjoy bringing up such unpleasant memories sir, however Knowing & Willful divergence from Constitutionally Recognizable "Law" is a Most Serious Concern. When such divergences from Constitutional "Law" are accompanied by increases in the administration of Force by the Governmental Employees of the State against "We the People"; unless there is some "Emergency" under which such is a pressing "Necessity" (as indicated by the Uted by the US Senate report & the Madden v Crawford Case); then we believe that such Knowing & Willful Departures from Fundamental Principles of Constitutional "Law" will be found by a Jury of "Reasonable Men" to be Knowing & Willful "Treason", sir.

            Now the essence of these concerns has been previously spelled out to you in wordings targeted for the average 5th gradeth grader, sir. We are inclined to believe that you are more than intelligent enough to clearly comprehend these simply chosen words. If this assumption is in error, please inform us of such. We can re-word it all for 3rd or 2nd grade levels if necessary. We don't really think such will be necessary. We don't really think such is the essence of our problem, sir. We think you are under immense pressure from powerful Private Special Interest Groups to compromise your Oaromise your Oath to Support the Constitutions of the State of Oregon & the United States of America. We understand that. We don't wish to cause you any trauma. However, if you cant handle the job, perhaps you should step down & allow someone to take that position who can.
            Capitulating to Private Powerful Special Interest Groups so-as-to mis-use the Force of the Deputies of the Sheriff the Sheriff's Department against the Rights of "We the People" in a Knowing & Willful Manner is effectively "War Against the State", sir. "War against the State" is the definition of "Treason", sir.
            The County Commissioners & Attorney Ward have shown themselves to be entrenched in Stonewalling the exhaustively & patiently presented many questions concerning these most seriouse most serious issues. We told them that they were in positions of responsibility for providing guidance & direction to how your Sheriff's Department Administers its Force, & that their actions thereunder were clearly seriously out of conformity to Fundamental Requirements of "Constitutional Law". We plead with them repeatedly to resolve these matters in further open discussion with us. They entrenched on Stonewalling us . They have clearly decided to prostitute the position of the Gover of the Governing Body of the County to the Private Special Interest Groups who command that the Force of the Deputies of the Sheriff's Department be administered in a clearly recognizable Constitutionally Lawless Manner.
            Now that the Record has been clearly made that Commissioners Kennemer, Sowa & Jordan, along with Attorney Ward; have completely exhausted their credibility before Reasobefore Reasonable & Honorable Men; the only other Office of serious concern to the Administration of the Force of the Sheriff's Department, is the Sheriff himself; which is you, sir. We will expand further on this important point as things unfold here, sir.

You touch upon the Court House issue with the following brief words:
            "Cou;  "Court House security has be(en) necessitated by real and growing potential of threats to human safety. The purpose of security measures is to facilitate, not limit, the legitimate business of people entering the Court House. The measures are not taken under the "Emergency Ordinance", but at the request and direction of Courts."

            Again, with all due respect, this is inadequs is inadequate response to our previously expressed concerns, worded as follows:
               Court-House Security: In times past, there was no security screening at the Clackamas County Courthouse. This to us indicates that "Emergency" Legislation has "Supplanted" those older procedures for "Peaceful" entry into the Court House under Constitutional "Law". Wional "Law". We see no other explanation for this present siege mentality to have become the "Permanent State" of affairs. We find it offensive that the Judges & others therein can no-longer Trust "We the People" to Come & go within Our Courthouse in a Peaceable & Public manner.
                We find that the seeming only explanation for this on for this is because there has been a shift from Naturally Conscionable "Justice" under "General Law" being Administered therein, over in favor of a the advancement of a Private/Special Emergency/Hiatus Agenda which is detrimental to the best interests of "We the People" & has caused "We the People" to Naturally become Resentful, to which those currently in control are responding by way of this new heightened & thereunder explainable paranoia.
                We respectfully ask that your personnel exhaustively search for All Written Evidence touching upon that Authority under purported "Law" which the older Constitutionally Lawful Security Procedures for the County Court-House have modernly become Changed to these newer heightened Security Procedures; & that such copies of such Written Evidence be made available to ourble to ourselves & the General Public at free or minimal reasonable cost of copying. We ask that All such of this Written Evidence which may specifically tend to reveal whether these heightened Security Procedures for the County Court-House are being acted upon under authority of any form of "Emergency Ordinance", such as the "Emergency Ordinance of Clackamas County" of 1985 by request of Sheriff Bill Brooks, be specifically similarly made available.

            As is clear herein; you have again Failed to Respond with Reasonable "Good Faith" Answers to these questions concerning Court House Security. You dismiss our concerns with a brush of your shirt-sleeve, because you presently have sufficient Deputy Sheriffs & guns to act in such dis-respectful manners. You totally ignore our requests for paper-based documentations of the underlying Basis in "Law" for th"Law" for this alteration of traditional "Open" access to the "Administration of Justice" in the Courtrooms of this State & County.
            Where are the documents which Evidence your "Request & Direction of the Courts"? We respectfully asked for these previously. "We the People" now Demand by way of our "Relation" of "Joint Tenancy" & Undivided Interest" in the "Sovereignty" of this gnty" of this "State of Oregon" & "Clackamas County" that we be presented with Copies of the Paperwork which Evidences this purported "Necessity (of) real & growing potential of threats to human safety".
            And quit saying the "Courts" are the ones who gave you the "Direction" to establish these Siege-Mentality Security Procedures. You know there was No Jury which adjudicated this purpated this purported "Necessity". This policy is based upon direction from some "Judge" or "Judges". Not a "Court". A "Judge". We Demand to know which "Judge" or "Judges" have set this policy in motion. We Demand to see the Paperwork which Evidences that this use of the Force of the State & County in this manner against "We the People" is "Reasonable".
            We don't believe there is any such "N any such "Necessity". If there is such, it is probably merely a threat to the Career Criminals who have Lawlessly Usurped the Judge-ships in those Court-rooms. Hereunder, the "Human Safety" you are purportedly concerned about can only be construed as concerns for the Safety of these Career Criminals, so-as-to protect them from being held Accountable for their Felonious Crimes under applicable "Law". Hereunder sir, you would be acting as an Accessory to the many Felony Crimes being committed o committed on a daily basis in that Court-House. Hereunder, the Massive-Wholesale Lawless En-Forcement of "Malum- Prohibitum" in place of Constitutionally Recognizable "Malum In Se" Common-Law is clearly construable as Knowing & Willful Aggressively Trespassing Actions against "We the People". This immense Volume of this Knowing & Willful "Lawless" application of the Force of the State & County is clearly construable as a "Warring" Act, sir. We believe a Jury of "Reasonable Men" willle Men" will find this to be "Treasonous", sir.
            We Demand to See the Documents on which this Siege-Mentality Policy surrounding Our Court-House is based, sir.

            There are many other issues which we could delve into which your last letter did pleasantly shed marginal light upon. But so mupon. But so much of this can be gotten to the bottom of during the meeting you have promised us. We need to establish in our minds whether you are sincerely concerned about respecting Constitutional Law in this County, or if you're a Treasonous moral- prostitute like the Commissioners & their Attorney. Considering the immense pressure we are sure your under, the Jury is still out on this matter, & we sincerely hope that you are a basically Honorable Man . By your hopefully soon fulfillingn fulfilling your promise to meet with us, we will be able to quickly come to resolution of this critically important concern. We hope sincerely that you're an Honorable Man who just needs a few nudges in the right direction here to begin to actually take your Oath to uphold the Constitutions of this State & Nation Seriously again.
            A letter back from you in response to this letter is his letter is hereby requested.
            In your last letter you said:
                "I remain willing to meet with you and a small group after the first of March ..."

              We most strenuously ask that you schedule this meeting as soon as possible, sir.


"We the People" of the State of Oregon & of Clackamas County,
by way of our Relation to our "Joint Tenant in" our "Sovereignty":

Charles Bruce, Stewart
39275 Hood Street, # D
Sandy, Oregon;
668-3932 >