From: Charles Bruce, Stewart;
39275 Hood St, # D
Sandy, Clackamas County, Oregon 
January 10, 2000
To: Clackamas County Commissioner/Judge Larry Sowa
Re: Clackamas County Court Questions, 3.2
I, Charles Stewart, on behalf of "We the People" of the State of Oregon & Clackamas County, hereby do communicate to you sir, our sincere thanks for your successful efforts on our behalf to finally break the blockage in "Good Faith" Communications surrounding the dependency upon Attorney Ward. His two recent "Memorandums" ndency upon Attorney Ward. His two recent "Memorandums" have provided some marginal improvements which are well noted for the marginal degree of insight they provide. Yet we continue to find the communications from Attorney Ward to still be quite lacking in effectively addressing our clearly expressed concerns because they still seem to mis-construe our previous clearly expressed concerns of key pivotal points. Point in support:
In the first of Attorney Ward's two "Memorandums" dated January 4th, in the first paragrairst paragraph, last sentence, he states:
"Mr Stewart (sp) relies in large part on the provisions of Article 7 section 12 of the Oregon Constitution."
This is gross error, of which if it were not for our promise to Ginny to keep the peace, we would immediately call into question Intent. Suffice it to say that our communications have Never relied upon "Section 12" of Article 7; & we have made this quite clear from the outset trom the outset to Ginny, Yourself, & Attorney Ward at all verbal & written communications. Our December 6th letter/fax made this plain through voluminous text, as did our January 5th communication. Tongue bitten, we note further, that Attorney Ward's second response to the January 5th fax continues to cite Section 12 as though it were that single source upon which our whole case pivots. This is Gross Error on His Part. Section 12 supports His Position, Not Ours, Not Ours, & We have made this clear at all times.
The volumes of case-law which Attorney Ward provided were all addressed to that wrong question concerning Section 12. The well intended admonition from Ginny at the end of her cover-letter advising us as to how our asking new questions causes more "Research" time delays is entirely an embarrassment to her. Before one delves into "Research" he should have the brains to make sure he's "Researching" the correct subject. That montect. That month where-under Attorney Ward was probably chasing down this off-point case-law was an entire waste of time, energy, & county taxpayer money.
We have made it clear at all times (to the point of annoyance of you folks) that our reliance is predominantly upon those "County Courts" specified in Section 1 of Article 7 of Oregon's Constitution. This (along with Article 4 Section 23) provides the basic backbone-outline (but not exhaustive) of Constitutional arguments in supports in support of our assertions that the "County Court" may exercise the full "Judicial Power of the State" over all Crimes committed within the geography of the County.
If Attorney Ward would not hang-up on people during phone calls when they are trying to "Get to the Bottom of This", perhaps such pathetically embarrassing blunders could be avoided. Focusing these hours of wasted research time in actually addressing the correct questions which "We the People" of this County & Stounty & State are truly presenting would surely be a blessing to all Honorable People concerned herewith.
Focuses on Malice behind Intent Avoided, & tongue bitten to the point of bleeding, We perceive possible light at the end of the tunnel by way of Attorney Ward's current predisposition towards answering "Yes or No Questions" which are squarely placed before him, & of doing this hopefully continuing in the previous 24-hour turn-around time. EMaiund time. EMail communications hereunder would expedite this "Get to the Bottom of This" effort multi-fold greatly, & would be taken as a significant olive-branch towards "Good Faith" efforts. EMail Address is at the end of this document. An EMail copy of this document should is be presently waiting at the commissioners address. This should facilitate sparing Attorney Ward typing in quotations of our points before he responds to them. It should further facilitate quick & efficient line-by-liline-by-line responses, so that major issues presented in our communications to you are not overlooked, as the fax communications seem to be thus far be so afflicted .
If we may consider the new higher communications standards as new Precedents under which "Good Faith" will be followed, we hereunder seek further answers to similar direct & squarely presented questions. As follows:
1: Are the present "Clackamas County Commissioners" capaommissioners" capable of exercising that "general jurisdiction" of the "Judicial power of the State" which is "vested" in those "County Courts" as are specified in Article 7 Section 1 of Oregon's Constitution?
2: Is that "County Court" referred to in ORS 203.111 capable of exercising that "general jurisdiction" of the "Judicial power of the State" which is "vested" in those "County Courts" as are specified in Article 7 Section 1 of Oregon's Constitution?tution?
3: With regard to ORS 203.035 which reads as follows:
"(1) ... the governing body or the electors of a county may ... exercise authority within the county over matters of county concern, to the fullest extent allowed by Constitutions and laws of the United States and of this state ...
(2) The power granted by this section isection is in addition to other grants of power to counties, shall not be construed to limit or qualify any such grant and shall be liberally construed, to the end that counties have all powers over matters of county concern that it is possible for them to have under the Constitutions and laws of the United States and of this state."
Do these provisions function to allow for the grand-fathering in of the Anglf the Anglo-Saxon Model of County Governing as is referred to in the Oregon Blue Book stating:
"... the American county ... is based on the Anglo-Saxon county of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest",
& does the governing-body of the County hereunder have the authority to exercise similar sovereign self-governing powers as did the Anglo-Saxons?
4: Is that "County Co: Is that "County Court" mentioned in Article 7 Section 12 the Same "County Court" as is mentioned in Article 7 Section 1 of Oregon's Constitution?
5: Is Clackamas County a "Local" form of government within this "State of Oregon" as recognizable under Article 4 Section 23 of Oregon's Constitution ?
6: With regard to ORS 131.205; Does that "this state" which is specified therein as being:
"ABOVE the land & water with respect to which the State of Oregon has legislative jurisdiction";
Does this "ABOVE" State create an Artificial Extra-Constitutional DeFaco Overlay Governing Body, which exercises a "Malum Prohibitum" Jurisdiction under which the "Un-Alienable Rights" of "We the People" of this "State of Oregon" to "Due Course & Process of Law" are Silently PresumedPresumed to have been Alienated away from us; & under which the DeFacto Courts of this DeFacto Governing Body take "Silent Judicial Notice" that the "Consent of the Governed" has been obtained by way of "Minimal Contacts" with this "ABOVE" State?
7: Does the use of the word "Supplant" at the head-note between the Amended & Original versions of Article 7, & where-under it states that:
"Original Article VII, compiled below, has been supplanted in part by amended Article VII and in part by statutes enacted by the Legislative Assembly."
Does the use of this term "Supplant" herein have the same definition as set forth in the following reputable dictionaries?
Random House Contemporary 1957: "Replace & Supplant both ... convey different senses. ... Supplant implies that which takes the others place has ousted the former holder, & usurped the position or function, especially by art of fraud ."
Random House College 1968: "1. To take the place of , as through force, scheming, or the like."
Oxford Universal 1937: "3. To supersede (another), esp by force, trickery, or treachery; to usurp the place or possessions of. 4. To uproot... ."
8A: Has Attorney Ward executed an Oath to an Oath to Up-hold the Constitution of the State of Oregon?
8B: If yes, may we have a copy thereof?
9A: Have each of the County Commissioners executed an Oath to Up-hold the Constitution of the State of Oregon?
9B: If yes, may we have a copy thereof?
Thank you again for your effoor your efforts regarding this noble cause Commissioner/ Judge Sowa .
Charles Bruce, Stewart;
On Behalf Of, & by way of Relation to the "State of Oregon" & Clackamas County.