From: Charles Bruce, Stewart;
39275 Hood St, # D
Sandy, Clackamas County, Oregon [97055]
Phone: 668-3932;
December 6, 1999
To: Clackamas County Commissioner/Judge Larry Sowa
Re: Clackamas County Court & Heckman Case

Commissioner/Judge Sowa;
            I, Charles Stewart; recently become aware that with regard to the private meeting with you on the morning November 15th & on behalf of "We the People" of Clackamas County & the Heckman Family; that the request which I & others placed before you therein was a complicated request, lending itself by its very nated request, lending itself by its very nature & modern novelty, to misunderstanding or misinterpretation.
            Hereunder sir, I have taken the opportunity to outline in this written format, precisely what "We the People" of Clackamas County were therein requesting of you. This should further assist you in putting the requested meeting together. I herein request that unless you see glaring problems with this letter, that you share copies of it with Commisit with Commissioner/Judges Kennemier & Jordan; & such others as you see fit. This should make our request that you draw together a meeting for fully addressing these issues easier, as this letter will explain what we are seeking, & will thereunder spare you of the burden of lengthy explanations to those others concerned herewith. If you see problems with this letter, please contact me as soon as possible so that we may soon work towards a "Meeting of the Minds" as to how to proceed ow to proceed forthwith.
            If the elements of the request as set forth herein are different than that which you recall to be the items we discussed in the November 15th meeting, then please accept my apology for probably communicating our needs ineffectively. I don't recall any room for such misunderstanding; however, I do admit that such is within the realm of possibility. Thereunder, please allow for this letter to override a to override any elements diverging here-from which may have been elements of the discussion in your office on November 15th.

            Firstly, a point which was not covered at the previous meeting, but which seems to be of importance, is the Basis in Law for persons such as the Heckmans, myself & others, to speak on behalf of the entire population of "We the People" of "Clackamas County". Upon this point, ORS 203.065 (2) reads as 2) reads as follows:
            The violator of a county ordinance may be prosecuted by the county in the name of the county, or be made the defendant in a civil proceeding by the county seeking redress of the violation.

            This is substantially similar to "State Ex Rel" proceedings, wherein Any Person who is wronged by is wronged by an Offense against the "State of Oregon" may bring an action in the Name of the State so as to remedy the wrong. Under "Ex Rel" in Black's 5th Law Dictionary it states:
            "Upon relation or information. Legal proceedings which are instituted by the attorney general (or other proper person) in the name and behalf of the state, but on the on the information and at the instigation of an individual who has a private interest in the matter, are said to be "on the relation" (ex relatione) of such person, who is usually called the "realtor". Such a cause is usually entitled thus: "State ex erl.  Doe v Roe."

            This is all similar to ORS 30.501 where-under actions similar to the old "Quo Warranto" actions can be brought to re brought to remove corrupted "Public Officers" from the office which they are abusing the trust in. This statutes specifically recognizes the Right of "Private Parties" to bring these actions "in the name of the state". "Madden V. Crawford, 295 P.2d 174 (1956)" goes into enlightening detail on this point. It is ludicrous to propose that this power should be available to Each of "We the People" at the State Civil Government Level; while at the County (which is so much closer to the people themselople themselves) this precise same power should be withheld. Hereunder, the Heckmans, along with those assisting them, are proceeding "County Ex Rel". Hereunder, we
speak upon behalf of the entire populace of the "Clackamas County". We are "Justified" in proceeding in this manner because "a Crime against one of us, is a Crime against all of us". This is what the "Social-Compact" as referred to in Article 1 Section 1 of Oregon's Constitution is all about.

     &n         On the date of the Wednesday the 20th of October 1999, at the evening "Open Forum" meeting therein; William & Delores Heckmanns formally placed a verbal Sworn Felony Criminal Complaint before yourself & Commissioner/Judge Kennemier, in your capacity as a quorum for the Governing Body of the County. Thereunder, I, Charles Stewart; did make brief,
& time constrained argument that this action on their part has caused "Due Course &e Course & Process of Law" to place upon you Commissioners certain "Duties" to "We the People" of Clackamas County to act as "Justices of the Peace" &/or "County Judges", all for the express purpose of bringing the full merits of the accusation thereby placed before you to a full & Conscionable
State of "Justice".
            Hereunder, you Commissioners have been sufficiently informed of both the Merits of the Claims b of the Claims being made by the Heckmans, & of the Arguments in Law which outline the "Duties" Imposed upon you Commissioners to act in this Judicial Capacity. The Letter in Response which Commissioner Kennemier presented to the Heckmans, myself, & others concerned herein, along with Attorney Wards attached Letter in Support, we found all to be woefully Inadequate in addressing the issues which have thus far been presented to you Commissioner/Judges as the Governing Body of Clackamas Countykamas County.

            We hereunder ask that you arrange a Meeting so as to effectively address the Merits of what we believe to be the basic Central Issues presently before you Commissioner/Judges with regard to this entire matter. Those Central Issues are but two; the first one being very simple & but preliminary to the more important following one. They may be summarized as:

1: "Is the "Clackamas County Commissioners" thmissioners" 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 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 L; 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"?

It is our position that the answer to both of these questions is "Yes".

            On the afternoon of October 19th 1999, Charles Stewart engaged in phone conversation with a Clackamas County Attorney named Myles Ward. At that time Attorney Ward stated that he did "Not Know" what the "Originathe "Original Intent" was behind the 1857 Constitutional Convention which established the Constitution of Oregon as it's Supreme Law. His excuse for such self-
admitted incompetence upon this point was stated by himself that "I'm not that old". Attorney Ward further stated during that phone conversation that he believed that he Could Not Answer any Questions with "Yes or No Answers", because he "Does Not Believe in Yes or No Answers". Further, He could Not state whether the label of "Municabel of "Municipal" is proper to attach to the form of governing process which the present County Commissioners are functioning under.
            In bold-faced indifference to his self-proclaimed incompetence with regard to Constitutional Law in Oregon; Attorney Ward attempted to self-assume a position of superior scholarship in the discussion by confidently proclaiming as Fact his proposition that "Law is a very difficult subject for p subject for people to understand." When Charles Stewart indicated in response that
perhaps it was merely Attorney Ward who was having difficulties comprehending what applicable "Law" was in this County & State, Attorney Ward rudely hung-up the phone on Charles Stewart, thereby cutting off any further opportunity to make progress towards a "meeting-of-the-minds" with regard to these questions.
            Tape-Recorded Evidenceecorded Evidence of this phone conversation may be available, if it should become necessary. However, we would prefer to just cut to the meat of the questions of Central Issue in this entire matter, as described further above.

            The singular constructive comment from Attorney Ward from the above described phone conversation was that he repeatedly accused Charles Stewart of "Playing Games" with regards to the Merits of the Issues bf the Issues being presented. We are thankful to Attorney Ward for "Breaking the Ice" with regard to this most serious issue, which is the equivalent of "Intent" & "Culpable Mental State" as is recognizable from ORS 161.085 (6). We are prepared to submit "Sworn Statement in regard to a Material Issue" upon these matters, which escalates the "Game Playing" Accusations which Attorney Ward has raised (& of which we do counter-argue similarly against him) to the "Class C Felony" "Perjury" le" "Perjury" level, as is recognizable under ORS 162.065. The presence of the Heckman Complaint makes all statements of both "Law & Fact" relating hereto of a "Material" nature.

            Our request to you Commissioner/Judge Sowa, is for you to facilitate the drawing together of a meeting in which the "Material Issues", especially of Law, which do surround this Heckman Complaint may be addressed by People of "Good Faith" & functh" & functional "Conscience".  It is clear from the shockingly large prison population that there are many Criminals within this
"State of Oregon". However, many among us believe that the wrong persons are in jail, & that when people like Attorney Ward practice their refined Art of Obfuscation as a precise Science, well hereunder all of this seems to us to be purposefully designed to effectively accomplish "Obstruction of Justice". It seems clear to us that this is clear evidenc clear evidence of such "Bad Faith" as to
amount to a "Culpable Mental State".

            Without a meeting such as herein requested, we will be faced with the most unpleasant prospect of becoming entangled in endless circular arguments over irrelevant trivialities with such men who are so lacking in "Conscience" as Attorney Ward. Our only alternative to becoming submerged in such a tormenting & claustrophobic array of communicrray of communication, is to pursue less Gentlemanly, Neighborly, & Christian Procedures, as we advance along that "Due Course of Law" Remedies Pathway (as is guaranteed to us in Article 1 Section 10).
            We sincerely desire to keep the communications upon the Gentlemanly, Neighborly, & Christian pathway, & that is why the hopes & trust we are placing in you as a respected member of the County Governing- Body is of- Body is of such importance to us. We find the issue of the "Administration of Justice" in this County & State to be a most serious concern. We do Not "Play Games" with regard to this most serious issue, as Attorney Ward has so falsely accused some of us.

            By way of his letter to Commissioner/Judge Kennemier, Attorney Ward has in essence stated that you Commissioners may Not "Administer Justice" for the Heckmans or for akmans or for any other People in Clackamas County. In his Letter, Attorney Ward attempts to divert attention over to the 7th Article in it's Original form within Oregon's Constitution, & to that particular Section 12 where-under there is a particular form of "County Court" which was created & which from the clear wording therein so as to exercise a "Limited" & "Special" "Jurisdiction". It reads:
"Section 12. Jurisdiction of county courts; county commissioners.
            The County Court shall have the jurisdiction pertaining to Probate Courts, and boards of County Commissioners, and such other powers, and duties, and such civil Jurisdiction, not exceeding the amount or value of five hundred dollars, and such criminal jurisdiction not extending to death or imprisonment in the penitentiary, as may be prescribed be prescribed by law."

            This focus lends convenient support to Attorney Ward's proposition that you Commissioners as the "Governing-Body" of the County do Not have the Authority or Power in Law to act so as to "Administer Justice" for the Heckmans, or for others in Clackamas County.

            However, Attorney Ward conveniently ignores Section 1 of the same A of the same Article wherein another form of "County Court" is declared to be empowered to exercise a "General Jurisdiction". This portion reads as follows:
"Section 1. Courts in which judicial power vested.
            The Judicial power of the State shall be vested in a Suprume (sic) Court, Circuits (sic) Courts, and County Courts, which shall be Courts of Recrts of Record having general jurisdiction, to be defined, limited, and regulated by law in accordance with this Constitution."

            This "General Jurisdiction" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary 5th edition as being a Jurisdiction of such a nature as is capable of fully addressing any controversy brought before it. It reads as follows:
                  "General Jurisdiction: Such as extends to all controversies that may be brought before a court within the legal bounds of rights & remedies; as opposed to special or limited jurisdiction, which covers only a particular class of cases, or cases where the amount in controversy is below a particular sum, or which is subject to specific exceptions. ..."

         &nbsbsp;    The "General Jurisdiction" "County Court" of Section 1 is a different & more powerful "County Court" than that which Attorney Ward prefers to draw the attention of those concerned herein towards. It is our position that it is Attorney Ward who is "Playing Games". Attorney Ward & others are members of a so-called "Bar Association" which exercises an effectively
Privileged Monopoly over the "Administration of Justice" before the Civil Courts of Clackamas County &kamas County & this State of Oregon.
            For the "County Courts" to become re-established in Clackamas County would be to place the "Administration of Justice" back in the hands of "We the People", & thereunder to break the Privileged Monopoly over this most essential of Public Services by the "Bar Association". Attorney Ward & others similar know which side their bread is buttered on. These ones enjoy a very high "st very high "standard of living" in comparison to the disenfranchised remainder of "We the People" of this County & State, & this all as a direct result of their present & unconscionable position of Privilege & Monopoly over this "Administration of Justice".

            Those of us who are truly concerned for the Quality of the "Administration of Justice" in this good County of Clackamas, do find ourselves repeatedly drawn tedly drawn by Attorney Ward & others of similar Private Agendas into endless circles of non-productive diatribe, after which we become physically, mentally & economically exhausted. Hereunder, these ones repeatedly have gained the victory, not upon the merits, but rather because of default because of the inability of any spokesmen who are truly echoing the "Voice of the People" to maintain the metaphorical "Battle-Lines" against that well-financed & engineered machinery of deceptionof deception.
            All-though we give this brief response to Attorney Ward's Argument herein, we positively do Not desire to get bogged-down in endless streams of paperwork back & forth with such "Game Players" as Attorney Ward. His Skill at Deception & Shifting off the Focus of the Discussion is truly impressive. However, it is also in Conflict with that "Due Course & Process of Law" which commands that the main isst the main issues in controversy be quickly & efficiently brought into clear focus for a "Speedy" & prompt adjudication. We seek by way of our respectful requests before You, Commissioner/Judge Sowa; that by way of the meeting we herein ask for you to draw together, that a breaking should occur hereunder from the habitual quagmire of "Game Playing" which the Attorney Monopoly habitually drowns those members of "We the People" of this County who truly seek Naturally Conscionable Justice. le Justice.

            We feel forced to avail ourselves of those mechanisms which are "Inherent" within "Due Course & Process of Law" for a said "Speedy Trail" upon this matter. It is our position that since the Felony Criminal Complaint of the Heckmans has been presented before you Commissioner /Judges, that you have the "Duty" hereunder to effectuate a "Speedy Trail" upon the merits.
              Technically, we could insist upon this being the very next step, as this Complaint of the Heckmans has already been Unconscionably "Delayed" because of the self-admitted Incompetence of Attorney Ward, & of the unjustifiable respect which Commissioner/Judge Kennemier seems to place in Attorney Ward's Incompetent Council.
            We do however recognize that this is a modernly novel propositionel proposition which we are seeking herein, & so we do hereby find it in the best interests of all to take a slower track in bringing everyone of "Good Faith" concerned herewith "up-to-speed" upon these matters. We would like to have you Commissioners begin to act as "County Judges" in the meeting directly after this
one herein requested. We feel that such is your "Duty", & that any failure by your body to act in "Good-Faith" upon such thus far patient requests as these, will constit, will constitute grounds for bringing Criminal Charges against such particular Commissioner/Judges as do choose to follow that most un-honorable pathway.
            You see the term "Duties" is related to the Term "Due". And because the Constitution recognizes that the People of the County have Rights, hereunder the Public Officers in positions of leadership (such as you Commissioner/Judges) Owe to Each of "We the People" (such as the (such as the Heckmans) a "Duty" to respond to the best of your ability, with diligence, & in Good Conscience, to render everything to each member of the Public which "Due Course & Process of Law" recognizes to be "Due" to said person.
            This is a "Duty Imposed in the Nature of the Office". By the very Nature of "County Governments", those People who aspire to Positions of Trust therein have imposed upon them certain "Dhem certain "Duties" which they owe to the People of the County. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) recognizes these realities by way of it's specific wording under Title 16: "Crimes &
Punishments", & Chapter 162: "Offences against the State & Public Justice". Hereunder, we find the following:
"162.415: Official misconduct in the first degree.
            (1) A public ) A public servant commits the crime of official misconduct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a benefit or to harm another:
            (a) The public servant knowingly fails to perform a duty imposed upon the public servant by law or one clearly inherent in the nature of office; or
&nont size=-1>            (b) The public servant knowingly performs an act constituting an unauthorized exercise in official duties.
            (2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

            More on this subject will be presented in theented in the soon forthcoming "Memorandum". But hereunder, we find clear statutory recognition that should any among you Commissioner/Judges choose to willfully disregard the "Duties Inherent in the Nature of " your "Office ", that hereunder said Commissioner/Judge may be brought up on Criminal Charges.
            One big factor here is the most powerful implications behind Article 1 Section 10 of Oregon's Constitution. It states: <. It states:
"Section 10. Administration of justice.
            No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation."

              Hereunder, even if all three of you Commissioner/Judges should decide to stonewall against the Felony Criminal Complaint presented by the Heckmans (a possibility which we would find shockingly surprising), "We the People" may then proceed in the alternative to call election of new County/Judges, & thereunder we may try those Criminal Complaints which are
then presented before said Lawful County Judges.
         p;     This is the clear "Intent" behind this wording in Article 1 Section 10. We didn't write it. However, the founders of this State Loved their Freedom, & they built-in these mechanisms so that "We the People" as their Posterity may carry on under "Free Governments" (as in Article 1 Section 1).

            "Delay" is hereunder not to be tolerated. "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied", is a well settled Common-Lawled Common-Law "Maxim". Goofiness such as that advanced by Attorney Ward is clearly recognizable by "Reasonable Men" as just that. "Justice" with regard to the Heckman Case has been "Delayed" for an unconscionable time-period already. We need for you to assist us in
putting together a meeting of the "Good & Lawful" Men of the County, Including the other Commissioner Judges of course; so as to more promptly achieve this Constitutionally mandated "Administration of Justice".


            To touch again upon Attorney Ward's influence this far upon these proceedings, many of the elements of either gross-incompetence or bad-faith on his part were communicated to you & Commissioner/Judge Kennimer on the evening of the 20th of October in which the merits of the Heckman Case was presented to you both. For Commissioner/Judge Kennimer to cite in his letter of response to us that it is "Imperative" that he follow thee follow the advice of such a self-admitted Incompetent, without any explanation of the accusations earlier placed against Attorney Ward's Competence; is (at least momentarily) to cause serious questioning of Commissioner/Judge Kennemier's capacity for Responsible Leadership for the Counties "Governing Body".
            Even disregarding such factors as the self-admitted Incompetence of Attorney Ward, for Commissioner/Judge Kennemier dge Kennemier to state that it is "Imperative" that he follow the "Council" of any mere human, is of Necessity to Draw into Question his Loyalty to the Constitutions of the United States of America & of this State of Oregon. The Bible states well that "A Man cannot Serve Two Masters.". Black's Law Dictionary reveals that the popular interpretation of this word "Imperative" is basically "Mandatorily". Hereunder, it would appear that Commissioner/Judge Kennemier is stating that he has no otherhas no other option than to do what this "legal council" of Attorney Ward tells him to do. Such predispositions as this would Necessitate by "Simple Logical Deduction" that there is no room for the Constitutions of this State & Nation to be taken into account. Words have meaning. That is what has been stated. This all clearly indicates that Commissioner/Judge Kennemier is seemingly placing Attorney Wards "advice" Above his Constitutionally recognizable "Duties" to "We the People" of Clackama of Clackamas County.

            We find numerous reasons at this point to Presume that Commissioner/Judge Kennemier has either merely chosen his words poorly, & that he does Not actually intend that Attorney Ward's "advice" be placed Above his "Duty" to uphold the Constitution of the "State of Oregon" as for "We the People" of Clackamas County; or (in the alternative) that he (like so
many others in our modernly epidemically depidemically dysfunctional society) is lacking in any truly "Culpable Mental State" (as is recognizable within ORS 161.085 (6)), & that he has been merely temporarily bamboozled by the aura of legal-expertise which accompanies Attorney Ward.
            The reasons we choose to make these Presumptions is because both you & Commissioner/Judge Kennemier Honorably agreed (during the "Open Forum" meeting on the 20th) that you both weat you both were "Duty Bound" by your Oath to uphold the Constitution. Also the well settled maxim of Common-Law that Presumptions should be made towards the Innocence of a
Person until the contrary is clearly presented before the Court. Also for purposes of facilitating "Speedy Trial" progression with the Heckman & other forthcoming cases within these first few communications.

Putting together the next meeting:
         &;     We need to be able to get to the bottom of what precisely is the "Duties" of the "Governing Body" of the County, as stated in the above two Central Issue Questions. Although we need to do this quickly & efficiently; our Concerns for Time should Absolutely Not be allowed to Interfere with Resolving this Matter in a "Conscionable" & "Just" manner.
            What is to be decided here will surely have repurely have repercussions out into the other Counties of Oregon, & probably even into other States such as neighboring Washington. The issues being raised here are of immense ramifications. We are talking about breaking the Private "Bar-Association" Monopoly & other factors of similar magnitude. This will probably be precedent
setting for the entire United States of America.
            Hereunder, we perceive that at least 70 t at least 70 or 80 People who are immediately sympathetic to the cause of a return to Lawful Government & for True Effectiveness in the "Administration of Justice" in Clackamas County & the State of Oregon, will desire to be present at this most important meeting.
            Also, the Accused within the Municipality of Milwaukie should be notified to attend this meeting, as it is the preliminary stages to a calling them to an Athem to an Accounting for their alleged Felony Criminal Conduct. Perhaps as many as 10 may wish to attend from that camp. We can present them with copies of the Felony Criminal Complaint, so this imposes no burdens on your office.

            After the basic presentation is made which outlines the "Basis in Law" for these "Duties" to be Honored by you Commissioners, the Attorneys for the Municipality of Milwaukie should be full opportun full opportunity to interact. If these ones choose to involve Attorney Ward or others, this is tolerable, at least up until it may again become clear that such ones are entirely incapable of interacting in "Good Faith"; after which point they should be barred from further partakings in these proceedings as "Infidels" to the "Law". This is not a Circus, & we don't intend to allow it to be reduced to one by those with clear reputations as Artists of Confusion.
    &nbsbsp;         From Attorney Ward's Letter, it seems that the opposing camp is effectively "Grasping at Straws" in their efforts to thwart this unfolding process. "Due Course & Process of Law" Commands that they all be given full opportunity to be heard, at least up until they have clearly exhausted their credibility before "Reasonable Men" in presenting any further possibly
meritorious arguments.
        &;      Attorney General Myers of the Civil Government of Oregon should also be invited to partake in these proceedings. The Attorney General's Office under Mr Kulongoski has written internal memorandums which are quite opposed to those Court which function under "Common-Law"; & this is effectively what we are seeking. Perhaps Mr Myers as Attorney General will choose to attend & present testimony himself, or by way of assistant. Perhaps Supreme Court Judges Kulong Judges Kulongoski or Carson or others desire to attend & make argument. The power to decide these things is in the hands of you three Commissioner/Judges, at least so long as you follow what the "Law" Commands hereunder.
            All of these Attorneys may fall silent after the basic presentation is made, however we involved in moving forward on this matter view it as our "Duty" to prepare for full exhaustive discussion upon the sion upon the merits of "Law & Fact" relative to the Heckman case as advanced herein. All "Reasonable Men" who are bound by the "Dictates of Conscience" (as required by Article 1 Sections 2, 3, & 7 of Oregon's Constitution) should walk away form this meeting with the full satisfaction in their minds & hearts, that the merits of the propositions brought to this meeting have been adjudicated in said "Conscionable" manner.

          &;    We further feel that this is of such significance to the general populace of Clackamas County, that advertisements should be taken out in the newspaper announcing this event. A "General Assembly" of the County should be called. This is how the Anglo-Saxons would have done it. This is the Model we should be following because as Oregon's Blue Book as published
by the Secretary of State in it's opening paragraph on County Government (p302-v-1996) states:
            "... the American county defined by Webster as "the largest territorial division for local government within a state ...," is based on the Anglo-Saxon County of England dating back to about the time of the Norman Conquest ... . Early county governments in Oregon were very limited in the services they provided.  Their primary responsibilities were forest aere forest and farm-to-market roads, law enforcement, courts, care for the needy and tax collections."

            A "General Assembly" would be the "Conscionable" thing to do. The ramifications herein are truly immense. We feel that this meeting should allow for at least 150 persons to be in attendance. A School Auditorium with a Stage would be good, or some other similar large building. Both County Commissionersommissioners meeting rooms are entirely too small, as are also most County Court Rooms in the County Court Building. Such small meeting rooms stifle public participation unconscionably. Closer to 300 person seating or more would be preferable. We would like opportunity to enter the building at least an hour early so as to assist in the arrangement & set-up of the chairs so that people can feel involved in the event (as opposed to being useless window decorations).

   &nbsbsp;          We are working on a "Memorandum in Support of Resurrecting the County Court" which should be forthcoming in a few days, & which will outline (in fairly comprehensive detail) the substance of our arguments of "Law" in support of this modernly novel proposition. As soon as it is finished, you will be sent a copy of this document.
            We will also place before you a writore you a written version of the Heckmans Sworn Felony Criminal Complaint, soon thereafter.
            The modern novelty of this entire process imposes serious burdens upon those of us doing the research & composing this paperwork, & hereunder we ask your indulgence.

Thank you Sincerely for your fine efforts in support of this noble cause Commissioner/ Judge Sowa.

Yours Truly,

Charles Bruce, Stewart.