Shortened Transcript of Discussion between the Representatives of
    the Constitutional Christian/Common-Law State of Oregon
with Oregon Civil Supreme Court Chief-Administrative-Justice Wallace Carson;
At Salem Supreme-Court Building, Library; Friday, 1 - 3 pm, November 24, 2000.

*****************************************************************

WC: Wallace Carson; ("Chief Administrative Head of the Judicial Department" of Civil-Government of Oregon.)
KG: Keith Garza;  (Assistant for Judge Carson)
CS: Charles Bruce, Stewart; (Chief JoP: Christian-Israelite Common-Law Court of Justice for People of Oregon)
PG: Pamela Gaston;  ("A Voice for Children", & "Oregon Judicial Watch".)
DG: David Gemeniz;  (Christian Patriot, & Legal Scholar.)
GW: Gary White;  (Christian Patriot, & Activist)

(Nothing of serious substance has been edited out of this document. Indicators that blocks of text have been deleted
are by " * * * " marks; while " . . . " are merely indicators of a person pausing, or garbled discussion.)
_________________________________________________________________
     (A beginning portion of this Discussion opened with Chief Judge Carson stating that
he was meeting with us in his Capacity as the "Chief Administrative Head of the Judicial Department".) * * *

CS: Amm, And I notice that you're the "Administrative Head of the Judicial Department".

WC:  Right. Let me explain that.  As "Chief Justice", I have three "Hats". The People Elect me, or not; to the
"Supreme Court", as one of the seven members of the Court.  And then ... for six year  terms.  And then, the
Court itself, elects, since 1910; elects its own ... "Chief", from the members.  And so I was Elected "Chief
Justice" in 1991, & re-elected six years later.  As a result of what's called the "Commission on the Judicial
Branch", which was a ... A "Appointed" Body ... that studied the "Judicial Department" in late seventies & early
eighties; proposed a Bill in 1981, for what we refer to as the,  don't ... take anything wrong by this, ... it's Just a
Phrase; a "State Take-Over".

PG: (snicker).

WC:  Yea, I know. I can see ... (many talking at once) ... as  long as it's fruitful ...

CS:  I .. I'm glad were getting to the hard issues here.

WC:  Ok.  What I mean by that, & you can look in the legislation any-way you want.  You ... until January 1,
1983, the Judges were "State" Officers, but all the rest, including a small Administrative Staff... ; We had Court
Appeals, & Supreme Court, & a small Staff; but All the Court Personnel in the 36 Court-Houses, were "County" Employees.
     And so ... as a result of Legislation, ... on January 1 1983, all the Employees then became "State" Employees.
So when your in Marion County Court, or your in Clackamas or Multnomah, the People working the counter, the People working Records, & all these ... , are
"State" Employees.   Many, ..., If they've been around long enough, were "County" Employees, until ... .
* * *

PG:  "83", went from "County" Employees ... to "State" Emlpoy ... . Those same People kept their jobs, with the same ...

WC:  Right.  And with that the State took over the obligation for the "Indigent Defense Fund".  It used to be a
County Responsibility, the Counties had to pay for Providing Lawyers for Indigent Defendants ... as you know,
it's not all Criminal, there's a lot of juvenile  ... . * * *

WC:  At that time, Im getting back to Chuck's point; At that time ... they made the "Chief Justice", whom-ever
he or she may be; the "Chief Administrative Head, of the Oregon Judicial Department". ... By Statute.

PG: So there were other changes then, at the same time?  Administratively?

WC: Ahh, Huhh. Yes. It actually ... The Chief Justice ... When I was in the trial courts, I came on the bench in
Marion County in October of 77, the Chief Justice who was Arnold Denecke, whose water-color is behind you,
... was Chief Justice, & he was what I would call the titular head .... he was the "Chief Justice" of the Supreme
Court ..., but his role as an "Administrator" was quite Limited.
And so Now it is a ... quite Expansive.  And a ... we have "State Court Administrator", which we had prior to
that time, and most of the... , we try to keep "Local Control" as much as we can, under the State Constitution
the State Law.
     But ahm ... as you're aware, the Cultures of the various Communities are Different, and they still Have
to Follow the Law & the Constitution; I want to be Clear about that; but uhh ... How They Set Their Program
Up, & What They Put Emphasis On, Is generally Left; again with-in the Constitution & Statutes, to "Local
Control".
     And the Presiding Judges, who are Appointed by Me; with what I call a Veto, under Chapter 1.  But
every two years the Chief Justice appoints a Presiding Judge, who is ahhh, the "Chief Administrator" of the
various ... we have 26 Judicial Districts in 36 Counties, because there are some Counties that are ... two Counties
in one "Judicial District".  And so, that's one of my authorities; but if I appoint somebody, & a majority of the
Court disagrees with me, I find that they can over-ride it, or Veto it.  And then I make another appointment, &
for the large Counties I find that can happen in three appointments, where I am the appointing authority for
Lipscom, as is in Jennet's ...

PG: Amm Humm.

WC: ... and uhh .., Bob Selander, up in Clackamas.  And they are the Administrative ... .  They're not called the
"Administrative Head", but they are the Presiding Judge of those respective Districts. * * *

CS: Thank you.  Ummm ... . Ummm ... . Did you get a chance to look at our ... controversial paper-work here?

WC: Yes I did.

CS: Did you umm ... have a chance to look at the letter to the Governor ... in support there ?

WC: I did.

CS: Our concerns about the "Supplanting"? ... of Article Seven ... and the 161 .... or is it 131.205?  Yea.
131.205 .   The "Above" ... the "land and water and air space above" that phraseology, are you familiar with it?

WC: Umm Humm.

CS: Do those things indicate that an "Artificial Over-Lay" has been Created that is technically "Out of
Harmony" with Fundamental Constitutional Principles, and that it's basically an "Administrative" type of an
estate ... that is "Above", a, a, a basically a dysfunctional ...  disabled, Constitutionally Lawful State ?

WC:  Well ... I'm wrestling with myself, as you can tell.  Umm ... I'm fairly easily read.  I don't play poker.
What you see is what you get. And umm.
     What I'm trying to do is umm ... fast forward ... . If this comes to "Litigation", and it well might, ...
then my training, as an individual, becomes a little problematic.
Because I cant speak.  Truthfully, to Answer your Question, I need Four Members of the Supreme Court to agree
with any Answer ... I come up ... on your Question.
     For instance, I wrote a case against the airlines ... taxing authority ... and the question was ... it's not the
question you've asked, but: "Could the State of Oregon tax air-carriers, flying over the State of Oregon"?  And
... in the skies, not from the Land.  Not based here.  And we wrote the answer, the Court didn't.  I mean I wrote
it, but ... the Court joined it.  I said "Yes we can".
     And so ... that's not an answer to your question, but my point is that there are cases where this Court is
called upon ... to answer questions that you may pose today.  So I thought about this after we talked Monday
that I ... you may feel somewhat un-full-filled ... when we leave today because ... some of these questions, I can
for-see, will come here.
     And ... I want to leave myself the opportunity to join with  my ... to think more about ...

PG:  I'm glad that you for-see coming them coming here, because that's your right.  And they are here.  Like
our initiative, ..has been, the ballot titles ... its biased no doubt.  But it has been improved.  So that we can go
forward with it ... .

WC: I hope you understand that I recused myself ... because of the litigation that's going on.

PG:  I know, that's right. There was a definite conflict. I think that the Judges were dealing with, the smart ones
do ... They recuse themselves a lot.

WC: If we can anticipate ... that this is not something that we should do.  There is a Doctrine of "Ultimate
Necessity", and that is ... you have to have ...  Under our system of laws, the Supreme Court has to render
certain decisions ... and we need (???) to render ...decision ....  * * *

WC: I don't know where that leaves you Chuck ...

CS: Well ... to try to boil it down there a little bit.  It sounds like, if Im interpreting your answer correctly, that
yyyou don't want to address that issue ... ???  that ... with-out the full Court ???

WC: Well ... there... . "Yes",  I think the answer is; & I'll try to explain that.
     I don't know whether that issue will, or will not, come to the Court.  But I think it's conceivable ... that
in some form ... it may come.  And all kinds of permetations(?)that could reach up here.
     And, I cant speak for the Court ... as one person.  The Court speaks to the Court.  It doesnt give
"Advisory Opinions", and under ... as we interpret our Constitution ...  And so ... It has to be a "Case or
Controversy" for me to "Speak".   And that's the way ... we do it.
     And so my fear is, that that question, and perhaps some of the others that you'd really like me to
answer, we may see back in terms of litigation.  And I would be ...

PG:  Well I'm hoping to see to ... that the answers to all these questions come, not today, not instantly, not over-
night.  This didn't get this way over-night. But the fact that were talking about it, and this can broaden ... talk
about ... and the people ... at least start feeling that they're being heard, and that Their Authority is being
Restored.  That's the problem.

WC: Umm Humm.

PG: They're realizing that they have no authority. That it's sit-down, shut-up, go-to-jail. ... Too bad.

WC: I suspect that this will break-down into ... into Procedural Aspects; and then Over-Arching Law Aspects.
* * *

CS: Thank you. ORS 161.190 & 195 talks about "Justification".
And 161.200 talks about "Choice if Evils"; prohibiting a "Greater Evil".

WC: Umm, Humm.

CS: And there's other statutes, that reflect Fundamental Constitutional Principles there.

WC: Well, this is a part of the "Criminal Code".

CS: Yea.

WC: Which is a part of the "Body of Law".

CS: Yea.

WC: And was re-written in 1971, I think.  And those are two fairly Standard ... Theories in Criminal Law.  As you...
* * *

CS:  But umm, I was thinking of that in terms of that in terms of your referencing ... inertia ... slow ... at being
able to get "Answers" ... to, to the Questions about whether or not ... umm, this "Above State", & this
"Supplanting"; is, has basically allowed an "Artificial Over-lay", that's "Administrative" in Nature; & is basically
no longer respecting the Fundamental Doctrine of the "Supremacy of Law".

WC:  Well one of the things, and Pamela has mentioned to me ... you have to be Careful ... uhh ... when your
using words ... for instance in part of your basic document ... you juxtapose, "Emergency War Powers" with the
"Emergency Clause" in passing the Bills.  I want to caution you, that: "That's a Leap." Although the word
"Emergency" appears in both.

CS: Umm, Humm.

WC: As you know, the "Emergency Clause" has One Simple, but important, Function; in the Statute. And that is
that allows the Legislature to Advance the Effective Date of the Bill.  The Constitution says its Effective 90
Days After sine die, after they go out of town; which was July 24th , last year.  So when-ever that 90 days after
the 24th ; what-ever, October some-time ... the Body of Laws they pass, became effective on that date.
     Now they can, & more commonly now, they will send it forward ... that it starts on a fiscal year, but to
be a fiscal or a callander year.  Some-times they will pass a bill in March ... they know they wont be out until
June.  They Want it to be Effective, & they will put the "Emergency Clause" on it; & then specify its date, when
it's going to be effective.
     That's ... And they Declare "Emergency".
     And umm ... , they're restricted.  They cant do it on tax matters.  One of the reasons on tax matters, is
because ... the public's right to refer a bill, on tax matters you need 90 days to get your signatures.

DG:  In 1996, the State Legislature ... after the people voted it down, three different times; the North-South
Light Rail ... , Passed it Under "Emergency Measure", & then also Funded it with Taxation it under "Emergency
Measure".  In 1996 also, the State Legislature ... gave uhh ... authority to all the Prisons within the State in each
individual County or Counties that they were in, the ability to access & collect Taxes, under "Emergency Measure".

PG: "Prisons"?

DG: Yes. In 1996. I stumbled across it by accident ... I was doing some tax research.

WC: I'm not familiar with it ... and ... I cant ... I wont deny it.  Because I'm not, I'd have to go look it up. To see ...

PG: Well, the questions that your asking ... wouldn't there be a way to ask that question of the Court?  Wouldn't
there be a way ... like on a "Writ of Mandamus" or something ... if he formed that question ... couldn't he bring
that to the Court?  Isn't there some ... see we try every avenue, that's kind of what we ... is another thing we
need to find out.  How do we ... ask a question of the Court, & have it ... answered.

WC: That's pretty Difficult.  It's difficult to answer, & its difficult to come across.  We have a rule here, that
umm ... the preference of the Court, is generally ... the years that uhhh ... unless it involves a certain court, the
first time a question is asked, is asked of a certain court.
Because they have power to issue a Writ of Mandamus.  We have the Original Power under the Constitution to
do it, & we do it Occasionally.  And we get a number of petitions for Mandamus over the years.
     And we Occasionally Grant Them ... Frequently we do Not .., because our perception is that they Could
have Asked the Circuit Court .  Now if a Problem is in the Circuit Court, Then you Don't Have-to Ask the
Circuit Court ... . That's a Possibility.
     But again it is not ... I want to stress ... it is not ... were not ... . The way were set-up, or the way I
understand the Constitution, & the way we operate ..; We Need a "Case or Controversy".   We are Not
Permitted, under "Our Doctrines" of this Court long before I got on ... to Wander Aimlessly across the territory,
and Answer Questions that are posed to us.
     As helpful as that might be ...

PG: So if it's quite relevant to a case, than that would be different?

WC: Yes.  * * *

CS: The "Original Article 7", umm ... it looked like the Supreme Court had uhh ... "Trial Level" Authority.  It
didn't look like it was an "Appellate" ... like it was Relegated to "Appellate Status".

WC: It was actually both.

CS: Ok, so.  But it did have the disc .... have the discretion to bring in a controversy and watch the litigants and
maybe form a Jury?

WC: Well ... No, no.  I mis-stated. Umm ... the Judges had Circuit Court functions, as well as Appellate functions.

CS: Yes

WC: And if you go back, starting with 1857, when the Constitution was written, and coming forward ... umm
the Judges were really kind of "Circuit Riders", & I think ... I  think I read it in some of your material ... there
was a period of time ... and I don't have it in front of me, and Im speaking history ... not ruling on a case or
anything ... that Judges on this Court actually "Rode the Circuit".  And they were then ... Prohibited from ... if
they were the Circuit Judge hearing the case ... when they came up Here ... then they couldn't sit on the case.

PG: Yea, you had appellate, it went direct ... you went straight from the Circuit Court to this Court.

WC: Yes. We didn't have the Court of Appeals until 1969.  And so, if you go back far enough ... I want to be
clear, because what I said may have mis-lead you ... The Functions of the Supreme Court and a Trail Court are
Different ... I think from the get-go.
     But it is true that there was a period of time in our history, where a person could be A Trail Judge and
then also an Appellate Judge, with a caveat that he or she, and these things are always key, ... could not sit on a
case that he had tried in the lower court. * * *

CS: Thank you.  Umm ... the ... Article 7 looks to us, like under the original plan, the Supreme Court ... save for
the individual that was on the Circuit ... he would disqualify himself ; but the remainder of the Supreme Court ...
it looks like under the Original Article 7, they had ... Original Jurisdiction & Trail capabilities.

WC: That's not my understanding, but you might be right. ...
     The way I recall it, and I haven't gone back for some time on the history, but the Judges .... as I say,
provided two functions ... would actually ... and I think the Supreme Court has always been in Salem ... well not
in territorial days, but once it was moved from Oregon City to Salem.  And they would sit here, as a Supreme
Court, but then they would go out occasionally, or frequently for that matter, and sit in the Trail level.

CS: Umm, humm.

WC: Now, I don't know that I'm responsive, but it as ... so no one person, as I understand it, sat both as a Trial
Judge & an Appellate Judge ... in the same case.  But, I think it is true, that there were people that were
Supreme Court Judges, that actually also were Circuit Judges, and tried cases out in the field.

CS: Yea ... Well I was talking about the 6 Judges that had not been on any case in the field. If something was
presented properly to them, they could take original jurisdiction, and hold a trail right there.  It gets back to your
old Biblical stuff, where umm ... the ... in Exodus & Deuteronomy ... where ... the people were to handle the
smaller cases themselves in their own jurisdictions, & the tuffer cases they passed on up to Moses ... and Moses
would bring in his court, with advisors, and ... but the Controversy would Happen There ... & it would be
Decided There.
     And it Wasn't an Appellate Process Going Back & Down ... telling some-body else to go-back & do it
right.  It was ... when it got to the Supreme Court in ancient Israel, that was where the ... the "Final Judgement"
was made there.

WC:  I'll assert ... and again its more historical than legal ... that this court has never held what you would
recognize as a Trial case. ... I was talking to Pamela, this building opened in 1914 ... it was authorized in 1911
...  at which time there were only 5 members of the Supreme Court, and then in 1913 they added two, to come
to the present membership of 7. And uhh there's no Jury box.
This has been an Appellate Court, I think ... for-ever.  And ... perhaps ... unlike our Biblical ancestry ... I'll
think ... I'll assert ... that the functions of Appellate Review and the Initial Trial, have been Apart ... for at least
our modern history.  * * *

CS:  another ... yea.  There's major threshold issues that we need to get broken open here.  So ... umm ... The
research on the "Supplanting", umm ... you seen No Evidence of "Bad Faith" in the 1910 ... situation there?

WC: Umm ... As I mentioned to Pamela, ... my answer to your question is "No".  I Do Not.  I talked with
Pamela earlier and ... something was going on at the end of the 19th century ... here in Oregon ... and the early
part of the twentieth century ... I'm learning, & reading cases ... & some history, which provoked what I will call
the "Populist" Movement ... that Resulted-In the Initiative & Referendum Aspects ... & ultimately in the "Re-
Writing" of Article 7.
     So ... I am unaware of ... I'll back up ... .  To my sense, I do Not Believe there was anything Untoward
about what the ... People did ... in "Amending of Article 7" ... but there are those who have written about what
was going-on in Government ... at that period of time.
     For instance, Amended Article 7 - 3 .., umm ... my understanding of it ... Took substantial Power
"Away-from" the "Circuit Judges", & Gave-it-To the "Supreme Court".   And ...  * * *

WC:  Well, I got a question ... I did a little Research before the May primary ... mostly for myself ... because a
person was circulating an Initiative Petition ... because in the Original Article 7, we had some ... what could be
deemed ... Racist ... Comments.  We used to ... in the early days ... we Count Population by ... "White".

PG:  Oh yes.  In the Constitution.  Yes.

WC:  Right.  Several places.  And umm. ...   So I got back into it and read the cases that analyze ... the ... what
happens to the Old ... 7 ... when the New 7 took place ... .  And it's contained in part ... in that editorial piece
that's in your materials ... Chuck has provided .  It's ... just a little editorial ... and that's where the word
"Supplant" ... comes up ... I think that's where it's from anyway ...

CS: Can I show you ... a Document that uses the term "Supplant" ... also.  Umm ... . Umm .. This is "Black's
Law Dictionary" referencing the phrase "Government defacto"... . Umm ... the term "Supplant" is used twice in
these ... paragraphs.  Umm ... I know I saw it ...

KG: One of them is at line 5.

CS: Yes. At line 5 ... it's hyphenated between ... the end of line 5 & the beginning of line 6. And the word
"Supplant" is also under "Government dejure". The last sentence there, a "Government dejure" is "A government
deemed lawful, or deemed rightful or just, which, nevertheless, has been Supplanted or displaced, that is to say,
which receives habitual obedience ... receives Not presently obedience from the bulk of the community."
     So here in Black's Law Dictionary" is seemingly Clear Linkages between this term "Supplant" ... and
references to "Government DeFacto", which is clearly our phrase for "Governmental Process" which "Outside"
... of Constitutional-Parameters. ... Ok?
     "Supplant" Isn't a Common-Term that a lot of people throw around.  But it's showing up here, and it's
showing up in the questionable process ... where-in Amended Article 7 came in.  It seems to us Reasonable to
Conclude ... that what was established here ... was a "DeFacto Government".

PG: And was "Supplanted" just like it says.

CS:  Yes.  And ... further there-in ... to get more into something that might flow a little-bit better for us here ... .
"Separation of Powers" Doctrine. Ok?
     "Madden vs Crawford", clearly references, that ... the Circuit ... so-called "Circuit Courts" now are ...
are "Created" by the Legislature.
     Ok?... I ... I'm sorry, that seems ... seems like we could explain that to like 5th graders, and they ...
"Separation of Powers" is there-by Violated. ... It's ... You know ...
     You frequently ... I get the feeling that you guys are quite "up to speed" on the Difference between
"Judicial Department" and "Judicial Branch".

WC:  No. ... There are "Substantial Questions" about ... "What is What".  We Are a Constitutional "Department".

CS:  Yes.

WC:  When you learn your Civic's Class, if they even teach it any more ... it's usually referred to as "Branch".

CS:  Yes.

WC:  But in Oregon we are a "Department".

CS:  Well a "Department" would Indicate "Separation of Powers" is "In Place".  Because it would be
"Departmentalized".  It would have it's "Own Separate Entity".
But a "Branch" ... that has juices flowing back & forth with a main-body, a Collective entity ... With the Other
Entities.  Yes.  The Executive & the Legislative.
     And so ... there-under ... a ... these "Circuit Courts" ... that are Given so much Emphasis to "Statutory
Law" ... and are Taking their Direction from "Statutory-Law" ... are No-Longer Following that ... those ...
Narrowly- Defined ... Parameters, of what ... "Supremacy of Law" is all-about, under Original Constitutional
Republicanism.
     And to throw another hammer in there real quick, is ... Article 1 (Bill of Rights), Sections 2, 3, & 7; all
make reference to "Conscience".  Article 1 Section 2 (I believe) references "Dictates of Conscience".  Under-
here we get into our Traditional Common-Law "Due Process of Law" things ... concerning "Mens-Rea", "Corpus
Delecti", ... the "Intent".
     In "Due Process of Law" ... when People are brought before a tribunal ... they ... if they've just had an
accident ... if hammer fell off of a roof ... accidently ... and hit some-body in the head and killed them ... that's
an "Accident".  There's No "Mens Rea", there is No "Evil Intent", and people can scream & yell all they want,
but it's part of "Public Policy" that ... that ... in Respecting Traditional: "Malum in Se", ... which is the "Body of
Law" ... that respects the "Dictates of Conscience"; ... If a person isn't trying ... doesnt have a "Culpable Mental
State" ... "Mens Rea" ... they're Not Suppose to be Moved Against ... By ... the Authority of the Constitutionally
Lawful "State of Oregon".

WC: Well, don't forget "Criminal Negligence". Homicide?

CS: Certainly. Certainly. Drunk Driving. Yea. Yea.

PG: They're "Real Crimes". An "Injured Party".

CS: Ok. ... Negligence. That is a Valid Concern.  It's a Valid Exception to the "General Rule".  But the "General
Rule" Still There, & it's Still Solid.

WC:  "Mens Rea".  Yes.  As ... if you go through the "Criminal Code" ... you will find a whole section on that .
But there are ... what?  Three or four "Mind-Sets" ... and it's "Intentional, Knowing, Reckless, & Negligent".
     So there are ... four styles ... or four "Sets-of-Mind" ... in encompassing the ...

CS: Defining the "Culpable Mental State" there?

WC: Yes.

CS: Yes. The "Culpable Mental State" is what's suppose to be Required .
     Ok, However; ... when we get into the Family Rights Issues, & the Driving Issues, & the Right to Carry
Arms, & things like this ... all of a sudden the "Malum Prohibitum" starts coming in at us; ... And were not able
to reference things like: "Wait a second umm ... I have no "Culpable Mental State" here.  I'm not trying to harm
any-body."  The "Family Rights" Issue .. if daddy wants to hold his daughter on his lap, ... or spank her ...  And
she goes to school & starts saying "oh ... boo-hoo ... daddy spanked me ... because ... he said I wasn't a good girl".
     And boom; the Nazi's come in and start coming in & pointing guns at people ... ?  I'm sorry; you-know; ...
this is beyond the "Constitutional Parameters", of the Original & Constitutionally Lawful "State of Oregon".

WC: Umm .... .  When I see a case that makes that argument ... I'll rule on it.

CS: How would you rule?

WC: I don't know.

PG: You cant answer that.

CS: You don't know?

PG: You cant answer the ...

WC:  Well you cant ... you use ... .  Yes.   I Don't Know, ...Chuck.
     I don't "shoot form the hip".  Excuse Me?
     I would take a look at, and see what the Constitution calls for.  For instance ... Im Violating My own
Preference in Not Debating with you About What the "Law" Is ... ; because it may come to me ... .  But you
started out with ... the "hammer falling off of the roof", ... in "D", you could be, given the right set of
circumstances, ... Prosecuted ...

CS: Ok .

WC: ... Criminally; for a "hammer coming off of the roof & killing some-body".  So ...

CS: I'll ... I'll admit that.

WC: Ok, so, ... My problem is ... is that I would Want the Opportunity to Think about that .., to see whether
we've written on it ... , We try to stick with "Stare Decisis" ... both here & our Anglo/Saxon Heritage ... when
the Court talks around the definitions of "Common-Law" ... whenthe Court has written that that's what the
Constitution means .., we try to stay with it.
     So, I Don't Know what the Constitution has Written, has been Interpreted by this Court.
And ... "Yes" . I think "I Don't Know" Is a "Preferred Answer" ... than saying I've decided every case & just
"Hit a Button ... I'll tell you how I'm going to rule.".   I  don't work that way.

CS: Well ... Im looking for a Recognition of the Difference between "Malum Prohibitum" and "Malum in Se". * * *

WC:  I learned that in Law School.  I know the Latin phrase ... phrases.  I know what you mean. But then to
move forward ... on to as to how it's going to operate ... I'm not so certain.  I mean you started out with "Mens
Rea" aspect ... and ... I don't need to repeat it, ... it's ... but I hope it  illustrates that it isn't just as simple as
saying: "Here's "Malum Prohibitum", & Here's "Malum in Se", & the Legislature is Violating the Constitution
when it passes a Law that is Based on "Prohibitum'".       Maybe  ... Maybe not.  * * *

CS: Umm ... The "Circuit Courts" .., the fact that they're Deriving their Authority ... for existence From the
Legislature . ?

WC: And the Legislature gets it from the Constitution.

CS: True.

WC: Ok.

PG: Which they "Amended" to be able to do that, though.
* * *

CS: The Constitution, created 3 "Departments".

WC:  Actually, the "Executive", which included the "Administrative".  So it's ...  * * *

CS: Ok, for practical purposes of discussion here, there's "3 Departments'"?

WC: Correct.

CS: Ok. And ... but the present "Circuit Courts" that are Operating .., they're "Deriving their Authority" from the
"Legislative  Department'".

WC: Yes; as Prescribed by the ... Constitution.

CS: Theoretically ... under the "Supplanted".

WC: Well ... the phrase .., I think that's probably True, because there were "Circuit Courts", as you & I
discussed; that "Preceded" ... the 1910 Amendment.

CS:  Yea.  But they had "Circuit Riders".  What you've got functioning there ... is Not ...  Historically Honest
"Circuit Courts".  Umm ... see the "Circuit Courts" were based on the old English System, where exactly as
under the Oregon ... there were "Circuit Riders".  That's what the term "Circuit Courts" is based on.  That is
how it was Originally Used under Article 7 Original.
    What you've got going out there ... doesnt have any "Circuit Riders".  They're ... they're Not "Circuit Courts".

WC:  Umm ... Well .., they are if you follow what I Believe to be True. ...  And that is that In 1910 the
"People" "Gave the Legislature" ... as established by "Law" ... the "Authority" to Provide an "Array of
Courts".".  And They Chose to call ... to Continue Calling them "Circuit".  But then ... later in the 30's or 40's ...
they created ... the Legislature Created Courts called "District Courts" ... of "Limited Jurisdiction".  And then ...
in 97 they combined District & Circuit ... & put them back to just "Circuit Courts".

CS: I'm familiar with all of that.

WC: Ok.

CS:  And ... and at that point ... I'd like to go with another shot ... is ... our "Definitions of Terms", you know ..,
that's number 1 .., is I don't believe those are "Circuit Courts".
     Number two?  The Definition of "Jury Trail".  "Jury Trail" Meant "Twelve Persons", & "Unanimous
Verdict".  What you've got going now is frequently Six Persons ..; Or Ten out of Twelve.   Ok .
     Those are Not "Juries" within the Original Constitutional Definition of the Term "Jury".

WC:  But you would give me that they are "Juries" under "Amended Article 7".

CS:  Amended Article 7 Doesn't Have the Authority to Re-Define Terms that Go-Back a Thousand-Years.

WC:  Well ...

PG: That's kind of how we all are feeling about it.  That this "Supplantment" has ... "Usurped" where our Rights
were ... maybe ... I don't know.  They've allowed everything to do it under the Constitution ... like you say ..,
but under the Amended 7 Authority ... . Which is ... that's what were questioning the authority about.

DG: Like when you go into these "Circuit Courts", & you try to put forth a Constitutional Argument, & 99 % of the
time the Judges just says: "There is No Constitutional-Law in this Court. This is My Court. That will Not be heard."

PG: They do say those things. We even have them on video.

GW: They "Make the Law" .., right there.

CS: Where is our "Remedy" for stuff like that sir?

WC: "Appeal".

PG: The Appellate-Court Dismisses With-Out Opinion ... Every-thing.

CS: The Red-tape is too thick.  We've got ... Statutes ... that say ... that:  When ... We See a Crime being
Committed ... that the People, & especially the Constables ... have the Right to Make "Arrests".  And if those
Judges are too stupid to figure out what the "Law" is .., they wont talk to us about it ... they're just coming at us
like Mad Dogs ...

PG: Umm, humm.

CS: Ok ... we go in there ... and we try ... and we try to talk to them about it ... they wont allow us to have our
own Non-Bar "Assistance of Council" ...

WC: We talked about that last week.

CS: Well ... I've been Thrown in Jail for that.  You ... are you of the Opinion that ... that I guess I didn't get
clear on that ... I ... the Current Policy that seems to be coming down in all of the Courts is that ... . If your Not
a Member of the "Bar Association" ..., your not allowed to sit next to some-body .... in those "Circuit Courts" ...
up ... to be his "Assistance of Council".  Do you believe that ... umm ?

WC: I think we've Ruled That . ...  Haven't we ?

KG: I believe, Yea. ...

CS: You've "Ruled That"?

WC: Yea.

KG: You have to be a "Member of the Bar" to Practice "Law".

PG: Yes .., but the "Bar" wrote that for themselves. This is exactly the Nature of the Problem were here to ...

CS: Umm ... How does that Promote "Justice" in the State?

WC:  Well .., first of all .., a person has the right to Represent him-self.  So .., a person can do that.  And ... I
don't know how long it's been ... it's been a long time ... that uhh ... in order to Represent some-body else ... you
Must Be Admitted to the "Bar".

PG: Well .., I think were talking about "Council" .., not "Representing" some-body.

CS: True.

PG: The "Right" of some-one to have a "Council" next to them ... who-ever they choose.

DG: "Council of their Choice".

CS: "Article 1 Section 11: ... The Accused Shall Have the Right to Assistance of Council in all Criminal
Prosecutions."  (Technically erroneously quoted, but the Intent is Correct.)

PG:  That's like the "Sui Juris" Standing.  That's why we use that so much. ... Because it doesnt mean
"Represented" Status.  It means Fully .. eyes, ears, Complete Case.  You eat your own food, you have your own
children, you think your own thoughts.  It's Present, where the Rights are ... Not "Represented".

CS:  Article 1 Section 11 Specifically States: "the accused shall have the right ... to be heard by himself and counsel".

WC:  And I think this Court ... I'm uncertain, but I think this Court ... years ago ... interpreted that to mean ... to
mean a "Member of the Bar".

CS: There was No "Bar" in existence when this was written, sir.

GW: 1878. (Error. Actually 1857.)

WC:  We had this conversation ... at the Bar . ... We .., the "Oregon State Bar" came into existence in 1935 ...
as a "Mandatory Bar" .., & you had to be a "Member of the Bar".
Prior to that, you had to be Admitted ... as I under-stand it ... by this Court  .., "Admitted to the Bar".   So
... the Standard of "Admitted to the Bar" ... has been ... I don't know how far back ...

PG: When was that that it came in that Only a "Bar Member" could "Represent" ..? Was that in the 60's ?

WC:  Oh no. No! I think I ... That's a Constitutional Original, and I think ... the Case Law goes ... I .., See this
is My Problem .., I think it's Case Law  ...

PG:  Ok. That's all-right ... It isn't

WC:  It was Long before me.  If you Interpret "Council" to mean ... "Legal Council" ... which means ... in this
State ... as I think in most States ... to be admitted to the Practice of "Law" in the Highest-Court in the State.
"Oregon Supreme Court".

CS:  Well I ... "Article 1 Section 10: No Court shall be Secret, & Justice shall be Administered Openly, with-out
Purchase, Completely, with-out Delay."  Umm ... How's that Harmonious with the "Open Administration of
Justice"?  I mean ... your "Stifling" Non-Bar People from coming into those Courts, and ... and saying: "Wait a
Second, What about this Point of Law".
     The "Law" is Suppose to be Based Up-on "Reason".  Your Excluding a Legitimate "Political-
Subdivision" Membership of the State ... from the say. ... People that are ... that do not have the "Franchise" of
the "Bar Association", are ... are "Purged" from the ... the "Open" Process that's Suppose to be going-on with-in
Constitutionally-Lawful Court-rooms.

WC:  Well ... I ... Let me suggest you may be extending the word "Open" a little bit.

CS:  "Open" is ... is ...

PG:  I have to agree with Chuck on this ... because this is what we ... see, they Don't get "Suspended".  There's
a "Total Block"  ... .  We don't get Respect ... yea ...

WC:  This Court had held "Open" ... is ... with the Public ... in Attention ... or Public ... Available ... . It ... I
don't think we've ever Written that it speaks to ... that every-body can have their own Friend ... help them ...
sitting at the Council-table.

PG:  Not their "Friends".  I think ... well I think we Interpret that to mean "Council".  Like say if I wanted
Chuck to sit next to me in Court.  And he has Constitutional Knowledge of the Law.  And that would be helpful
to me.  I should have every Right to let him sit next to me, and help me, Orderly in the Court.  We are talking
"Orderly" & "Accountable" down-the-line on all sides, here.

DG:  Were not talking about the square-dance club.

PG:  No. Were not talking about coming in and cutting up, and creating chaos.  Were talking about Orderly
People ... being Accountable.  Victims & Public-Servants.
Actually, I wanted to bring that up.  "Accountability" is one of these Major Issues ... that were dealing with.  Because
if ... every-body down the line ... were being Accountable ... First of all they take an Oath to the Constitution ...

WC:  Correct. * * *

CS: * * * And point number one;  "Do You Recognize that there's n Epidemic-Failure of "Due Process" out there, sir?

WC:  Uh, we see a Few Cases here.  And I certainly heard Pamela's Concern.  She has certainly Reported to
me; and I have no reason to challenge her.  But I don't know as a fact ...

CS:  What about all these Seizures that are going on with the "Drug" ... situations?

WC:  Well, we Write on that all the time.

CS:  Ok, but that happens before "Due Process of Law".  "Due Process" Happens In "Court-rooms".  You
know.  People are getting their Property "Seized" ..; Before Any "Courtroom-Process" takes place.

WC:  Wasn't there a ballot measure on that? * * *

CS:  Ok.  But in the past, anyway.  Regardless of the current ballot-measure.  There's all of these "Drug
Seizures" ... have been Taking Place in Violation of "Due Process".     Do you Recognize that, sir?

WC:  I'm ... trying to think, Chuck.  I think we had ... some cases on that

KG:  There may even be ... a case or two presently under the Court's Jurisdiction  that raises a question of ...

WC: ... whether it meets Constitutional muster.

DG: I mean even with the DEQ. Now, a guy runs over a mouse.  And three years later, they can't identify
whether it's an endangered species or not .., yet they Seize all of his Property .., Seized all of his Equipment ... .

PG:  Their's all kind of "Insane" things like that that go on ...

GW :  That Never Reach your Court

PG:  Families and families

GW:  Many Many Cases that Never Reach your Court.

DG: ... Their's People who Can't Afford ... let alone to "Pay" a Licensed "Bar-Attorney".  I mean, That's
"Here".  If we had to Depend on Licensed "Bar-Attorneys" .., we'd all be sitting in Jail.

GW:  Or "Broke".  Or "Broke".  * * *

PG:  Well, there's another side to the Accountability cloud.  I made a note.  I want to say this.  There's no
"Equal-Prosecution".  That's another "Huge" Part that's missing. We have Title 18, Title 42, Federal-Laws.
They're Not been Enforced .  We can't ... We have "Citizen's Arrest" ... & you know our story ... what we've
done.  And other's have.  We Can't Get these "Public-Servants" Prosecuted.

CS:  Do You Agree that "the People" have the "Right" to make "Citizen's Arrests" of Corrupted Public-Servants?

WC:  Well, I think I would Agree.  But there is ... I think he's Right.  There is uhh ... . It's not as Easy as you
Lay-it-out.  But I think there is ... "Citizens Arrest" ... * * *

CS: * * * We need to bring it into Focus ... Again ... with ... trying to come to a "Meeting of the Minds" as to
"What is  Applicable Law'" .., & "What's Causing these Dysfunctionalities" ... .  And if, you know ... .  We see
Dysfunctionalities in ... in the Government   judicial, legislative, & executive; ... that apparently Aren't Being
Recognized on the part of the "Civil-Servants" ... that are Supposed to be ... "Employees" of "the People"; ... i.e.
"the State".

WC:  Well .., They're "the People".  Your Right.

CS:  Ok .., thank you.  Umm ... . And there-fore ... .  There's a "Failure of Communication" .., you know ..,
there's Not Enough "Dialog" Like This.  And to be honest about it .., I think you're Hedging a little-bit ... . But,
you know everybody does that, and ...

WC:  I ... that's ... I almost called you ... to say:  "Well, if this is going to be a "Constitution-Law Quiz", that
has me render "Rulings" on each of the Assertions that you make in here ..,  I'd love to "shoot from the hip",
but that's not fair to you .., and it's not fair to me .., without the thought necessary ...

PG:  No, it's not.  I don't expect that.

WC:  So ... I'm "Hedging" in the sense that I'm Not going to Make "Constitutional Rulings" as you serve them
up to me ...

CS:  I'm not looking for "Rulings".

WC:  Well .., it's awful hard for me ... to ... take off my "Hat", as a "Justice" of the "Oregon Supreme Court",
and say, "Oh, well, I didn't have my "Hat" on.  And there-fore I'm going to Rule this- way today and then that-
way ...", or  "I'm going to give an opinion today, and rule the other-way tomorrow ... because I have my robe
on." ... You wouldn't appreciate that.

CS:  Well ... .  "Law" speaks with a "Single Voice".  And ... You've got an understanding of how the "Law"
works in this State.  Arguably, the most advanced .., Theoretically, most advanced understanding of how the
Law works in the State ... of anybody here ... .  Because ... You're the "Chief Justice" of the of the Chief
Judicial-Tribunal of the State. ... You know. ...
     You should have a blue-print in your mind of how the "Law" works.  We are here before you, ...
Asking ... for Your Opinion as to ... How the "Law" works.  And ... and with all due respect, we're not getting
..., there's a lot of insight, don't get us wrong, and we appreciate that ... but, at the same time .., it could be
better.

WC:  Well, but think your way through this, Chuck.  As I know you have.  But ... it would be "Folly" for you
to Act on anything that I .., If I were to answer ...

CS:  That's My Problem.  Let me worry about whether or not I "Act" ... or don't Act.

WC:  Well, what ... It would be interesting ... . And it may or may not happen .  But I suggest the way it would
play out ... Is ... well ... The "Chief Justice", who is this know-all, see-all, learn-all person ..., said, "It's OK!!"

CS:  No, no, no, No!  All were asking you for,  is your "Opinion".   That's all we need on the Record, is your
Opinion .., of how the "Law" works.  We recognize that there's 6 others here that can over-rule you ... anytime
they want.

WC: Right.

PG: Absolutely.

CS: Ok ... And what I have Visualized in my mind is ... is After we get Justice Carson's "Opinion" on the
Record ... of: "Law works This Way" ... Then we can go to Mr. Kulongowski,  and the others ..; and say, "Sir,"
you know, "Mr. Carson has shown Courage on these Issues, could You ... Emulate Mr. Carson's Courage ... and
give us Your "Opinion" also, on whether or not the "Law" works in this way ... or that way?"
     Because ... We heard Statistics at the other Jud-Com Meeting there that there's "Ten Thousand People"
in Prison in the State of Oregon.

WC:  I heard the same.

CS:  Ok.  This Massive Prison   this is ... an Extremely Large Number of People in Prison.  And ... And I Dare
Say ... the Vast Majority of them are there Out-side of  "Due Process of Law".

PG:  "Seventeen Thousand Children" .., Chuck

CS:  If "Habeas Corpus" was working properly .., if it was being Properly Respected .., that would probably be
.., Nine Thousand of those People could probably Walk Out those doors within the next thirty days.

PG:  This "Amicus" I gave you today addresses what he talks about ... exactly the Prisons it goes through ...

CS:  Ok .., And the Vast Majority of these so-called "Crimes" are based upon "Malum- Prohibitum" .., They're
"out-of-court" "plea-bargain" settlements, from, basically, "Terrorism". The People are "Threatened" by the
Prosecuting Attorney's Offices ... with ... Insane Sentences .., And they have "No Defense" because they can't
afford a halfway decent lawyer ... . And so, they're Caught in a "Human Meat-Grinder" there, that's got their
foot & dragging the rest of them in .., and they figure: "Well, I'll cut my Losses, & I'll  Amputate' here, &
spend Two Years in Jail, & That Way I Won't really Risk the Twenty Years that this ... Insanity is Threatening
me with."  And so, "The Machine" is out there Threatening all kinds of People with that kind of stuff ..; And so,
that's Why you've got "Ten Thousand People" in Prison ... that are there without "Due Process of Law".
     ... & "Jury Trial" means: "Twelve-Persons" .., "Unanimously".  That's what's Suppose to happen.  And
you're Supposed to Show a "Culpable Mental State" .., & you're Supposed to Show a Person "Actually
Harmed".  That's what: "Due Process of Law" Requires, according to the Constitution ... .  And it's "Not being Respected" ... .
     And we're here before you saying that: "Things are hard-over Redline'".  People are saying, "Is it time
to take up arms yet?" ...  And we're going, "No, no, no.  Not yet, not yet.  We're talking.  We're talking.  You
know ... .  And we're working with paper-work .., and we can really think, you know, if we do a little bit more
paperwork, people are going to start listening to this ...
     This Constitutionally Lawless, & I know I'm overusing the phrase, "Human Meat-Grinder," that's
coming forth, this phrase, "Government-DeFacto", seems to be Entirely Appropriate for what's going on here,
sir.  That "Ten Thousand People"? ...  That  needs to be reduced .., That needs to be start "De-Escalating"
Immediately.
     These People that are talking about "Building More Prisons" ..?  They need to be sat-down & have a
Hard Conversation with them, & say, "I'm sorry, No.  We just realized that we're way over into "Malum-
Prohibitum", & We're Constitutionally-Prohibited from that, because, from the Redundancy of being "Bound" by
the "Dictates of Conscience" set-forth in "Article I, Sections 2, 3, & 7" .., We just Can't Do This!  It's "Treason
Against the Constitution", & "the People", & the "State of Oregon". ... And we can-Not do this ... .  And you
guys with this "Agenda" for "Building More Prisons" .., You're going to have to Go Find Another Project.
     And, by the way.  Some of these Prisons are going to start getting Vacant real quick, because there
Needs to be Way-More "Habeas Corpuses" Issued ... Forth-with.
     Wilbur Gaston's Daughter needs to have a "Habeas Corpus", Forth-with.  There has been No: "Due
Process of Law" shown on Wilbur Gaston's Daughter ... .  The "People" that have ... that young lady ...  can-not
"Show" that "Due Process of Law" has been Completed.  A Person is Supposed to be "Innocent until Proven
Guilty", in this Country. ...  And there has been Nothing "On the Record" to "Show" that Any-body has been
"Proven-Guilty".  If they can't "Prove" that there's been a Crime Committed .., "Melissa Gaston" needs to be
Returned to Pamela & Will ... Forth-with .., Sir .

WC: ... Ok.  I understand what you saying.

PG:  We've filed the Habeas ...

CS:  When did they get filed?

PG: Oh, we filed it more than two years ... we filed ...  * * *

DG: * * * If you look at our "Table of Titles", we have our "Remedial Code", we have our "Civil Code", we
have our "Penal Code".  And then ... seventy-five percent or more, is "Political Code".  People like the Gaston's
.., People like myself .., are All Being Made "Political-Prisoners" .., because there are "No-Crimes" ...
Committed here !

CS:  It's Not under the "Criminal" Code?

DG:  It's Not under the "Criminal" Code.   It is under the "Political" Code.  Right here   three-fourths of these
"Oregon Revised Statutes" ... .  "Why are they called  Revised Statutes'"?
     Because they Violate People's "Rights".  Because they are Not "Law" .., because they are "Color of
Law" ... .  And they "Infringe" on People's God-Given "Liberties" and "Freedoms" ...  and With-out "Due Process" ...

PG: ... which in it-self is un-constitutional ... that goes back to the "Bill of Rights".                 (Chatter)

CS:  Dave .., don't lay too much on him, there.  I'm sure he gets ...

WC:  Well .., No, I ...

PG:  These Are the Issues ...

WC:  I think I understand.  I don't agree with you on your Analysis, but I understand what you're saying.  And
I'm not going to ...

DG:  We have over three-hundred-percent more "Political-Prisoners" in this country ... than the Worst other nation.
* * *

CS: * * * But, to re-focus on, from ... from the Nature of what Appears to be "De-Facto Government" .., Over-
to: What the People have-to-do ... to take "Remedy" them-selves.
Article 4, Section 23 of Oregon's Constitution: "the legislature shall not pass special or local laws" ...

WC:  You know what That Means ..?

CS:  I'd like to believe I do ... .  I believe I touched on it in my paper-work . If you can .., umm ...
"Constructive Criticism" ...

WC:  No. I ... No .., I'm trying to think if there's a Case on it.  But I believe normally "Local & Special" Laws
are what the Legislature used to do ... for granting "Corporate-Charters" .., & also granting "Municipalities".
They don't do that anymore.  And a "General" Law is still ok. But a "Special or Local" Law ... that speaks to ...

CS:  Yes.

WC:  ...you Don't Want to Carry it Too Far .. and ... in 4-23 ... they're talking about what the Legislature can-
not do ... as "Special-Laws".  But then ... if you turn back to Article 7, & I've forgotten the number of it ... it's
Clear that the Legislature can do it in "General-Laws" ...

CS:  Well, the Term "Special" ...

WC:  I mean it "Says". ... I'm not ... Constitutional Issue minded ...

CS:  Yea.  Well, the Terms: "General" and "Special" Law .., to me; seems Synonymous with "Malum-Prohibitum"
versus "Malum-in-Se".

WC:  Ok, I don't follow you on that.  I'm un-persuaded, that that's ... the Distinction.  You May be "Right".
But I've ... never thought of it that way.

CS:  OK, well ..., the term "General" being substantially-similar to the word: "Common" ?           (Pause)

WC:  ... Yes, in the sense that ... and now don't take-it into "Common-Law" . ...  "General" ... it may have a
Root there .., but "General" would be ... something that ... . You Drive on the right-hand side of the road, ... or
that you have to "Register to Vote" ..,

CS: Ok ...

WC:  ... would be ... that applies .., in that sense .., it is "Common".  It applies to "You & Me".

CS:  Well .., technically .., not ... well technically "No".
When the Legislature purports to legislate: "The people will drive on the right-hand side of the road" ... .
That's a "Special-Law".

WC:  Ok, I   you may be Right.  But ... My View of it ... is Contrary to yours. ...

CS:  Ok, but what they do have the authority to Legislate-on is uhh:  "People will not drive Recklessly."
     And if everybody's driving on the right-hand side of the road, & there's some goof-ball out there driving
on the left-hand side of the road .., He's in Violation of a Statute that says: "You will Not Drive Recklessly".
Because obviously, he's out there Risking a Danger to People.
And that would-be a "General-Law".
     But to say: "People will drive on the right-hand side of the road or they will suffer a traffic policeman
writing him a ticket or dragging him off into jail"?  ... Well ... if it's the middle of the night, and you've got a
Four-Lane Free-way .., & there's "No-Body On-It" .., & he wants to go over there, and drive on the left-hand
side of the road for a while .., and there's "No-Body being Endangered" .., and a Police-man's off to the side,
seeing him .., watching him go by ...; the Police-man should just let him go by .., because there's "No-Danger".

PG:  He hasn't "Committed a Crime".  And that gets taken to the Extreme by the Police-Officers ... this whole
thing where they just: "You Broke a Rule " ... "We made a Rule, You Broke It."

CS:  Yea.  This gets into, the ... Everything in the Current "State" .., that the current "Civil Government" of the
State is doing .., Is Way-Over into "Malum-Prohibitum", sir. It's Way-Over into the "Special-Laws" Areas, sir.
You're Way-Beyond your Constitutionally-Lawful Parameters ... .
And these "Ten-Thousand People" that are "In Prisons" .., these are "Prima-Facie Evidence" that a "State
of War" Exists ... between the Present "Civil-Government" of the "State of Oregon", & "the People" who
Lawfully-Compose ... Constitutionally-Compose this "State of Oregon".  Did you see the Senate "Emergency/War-Powers
Report"?  Umm ...

WC:  I saw it.

CS:  Do you think those Principles apply within Oregon?

WC: To the "Emergency-Powers"?

CS:  Yea.

WC:  You mean to the "Emergency-Clause"?  We talked about that
...

CS:  Well the "Senate Report" says "Constitutional rights and privileges have been  Abridged' by ..." oh shute ...
umm ... It says: that "A Majority of the People in the United States have lived all their lives under emergency
rule. For forty years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying
degrees, been abridged by laws brought into being to force of states of national emergency."

DG:  I'm living testimony to that.

CS: OK, see .., see this gets to all those "Emergency Declarations" ... .  And I don't doubt it's within the realm
of possibility ... that you could be really thinking that ... that all of those "Emergency Declarations" at the
bottom of all this legislation ... is Merely for "Time" Concerns.

WC: Ok.

CS:  But, I'm sorry.  I Firmly Believe that there's More-To-It ... than that.  That when those purported Concerns
for "Time" are advanced, at the bottom of all that legislation; ... at the Same Time, ...  "License" is Given to ...
to Circumvent "Constitutional Parameters".  * * *

CS: * * * Do you see what ... how this Evidences that   this is Prima-Facie Evidence that there's an Epidemic
of Reaching "Beyond" the Parameters of "Constitutional Law"?  Do you Recognize that, sir?

WC:  Sitting here, I see a Distinction between what we talked about before ...  the Power of the "Emergency"
Clause ... and this statement here.  So, I guess my answer is "No".  I don't see the "Connection" that you make,
between this "1973 study", and the "Emergency Clause" at the bottom of a bill last year.  Now maybe there is.
But I don't see it.

CS: Ok.  To Re-Phrase the Question: "Do you see that "Emergencies" are being used ... that this Evidences that
"Emergency Declarations" are being used to step Beyond "Constitutional Parameters" ?

WC:  Well, I haven't read that.  I looked at it briefly.  But when I saw the Connection I thought you were
making between that Document and the "Emergency Clause" of State legislation, I moved on to other-parts of
your materials, that you've provided me.  So, I have No Opinion on that.  * * *

CS:  ORS 1.010 "Courts of Justice" ... Do You Agree that: "the People" have the Authority to form them-selves
... like the Old "Hundred-Courts", & Form their-own "Courts of Justice", & "Elect" their Own "Justice of the
Peace", & their Own "Constable", & hold "Jury Trials", & Issue "Writs of Mandamus" & "Habeas Corpus", &
Affect "Public-Policy"?

WC:  Under that?

CS:  Yes.

WC:  Chapter 1?

CS:  Yeah.

WC:  No.

CS: Uh .., Subsection 5 says ... they have the Authority to "Control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of
it's ministerial officers, and of All Other Persons in Any Matter connected with any judicial proceeding before it,
in every-matter appertaining there-to.".

WC: Yeah.  Every "Court of Justice".  Starts-out.

CS: Yea.

WC:  And, if you go to the Constitution; the Constitution says "As Established by Law", ... doesn't it ... .

CS:  Yeah.

WC:  Now I think ... .  Maybe you can Inform me on this .., but that's ... . It would Seem to Me that the
Constitution Says the "Legislature" may Establish a "Court of Justice"; ... that has these Powers. ...  And what I
hear You describing ... is something that Hasn't been "Created" by the Legislature, ... such as "Circuit-Courts".

CS:  Correct.  It "Hasn't" been "Created by the Legislature". The Legislature is a "Sub-Division" of the "Civil-
Government".  The "Civil-Government" is Restrained With-in Certain Parameters ... by the Constitution.

WC:  True.

CS:  Ok .  "The People", themselves; Are Not Restrained.  As in Article I, Section 1: "All men, when they form
a social compact, are equal in right, that All Power is Inherent in the People."  Ok?  The "Civil-Government" of
the State was given a "Limited" Amount of Power.  But "All-Power" is Still "Inherent In the People".
     And if you look at Terms such as "Political Sub-division", umm ... (presenting photo-copies of quote)
umm ... out of Black's Law Dictionary:  "a Division of the State made by Proper Authorities there-of, acting
with-in their Constitutional-Powers for Purpose of carrying-out a Portion Of those Functions of State, which, by
long usage, & Inherent Necessities of Government, have Always been Regarded as Public.  State ex Rel".
There, you get into "Relation" of "the State", again.  But umm ...
     And if you turn it over, you look at the "Right of Local Self-Government".  "Power of citizens to
Govern Them-selves as-to Matters Purely Local in Nature through Officers of their Own Selection.". ... Ok?
     This shows "Why" Article 4, Section 23; "Prohibits" the "Civil-Legislature" from Legislating on those
things.  These Powers of ... this is a "Right" of "Local Self-Government" that is Retained to "the People".  This
is one of the "Lines of Demarcation" ... where-in the "Civil-Government" & its Legislative-Powers .., is Not-
Allowed to "Infringe" Up-on the "Right of Local Self-Government" ... that is "Inherent with-in the People" ...
Pursuant to Article I, Section 1, ... "All Powers Inherent in the People. ... umm ... Does that sound ...

WC:  I don't track you.  I mean, I understand what you've said. But uhh ... That's Not My Understanding, ...
that uhh ... my Neighborhood could set-up a Court, & uhh ... Try People, & Sanction them ... in the
Neighborhood.   I ... We Have A "Form of Government", & That's Not It.

CS:  Really.  So.  Umm ... "The People" do Not have the Power to "Self-Govern" ...

WC:  Sure they do.  Don't "Twist it".

CS:  Well ... . The "Small Neighborhood" ...

WC:  Yeah.  Through ... the "Process"; ... By "Statute", & By "Constitution".

CS:  So.  Only through the "Civil-Government"?

WC:  Well ... . What, you mean by ... .  Well ... I can see where this is going. ...

PG:  Let me ask you a question with this.  What if we pass our Amendment, that we're passing ...

CS: No, no, no.  That's the "Civil-Government".  We Have the Authority to do it under "Common-Law".

PG:  I'm just saying: "If it wasn't there ... . If the Amended 7 was Not There ... .  Then there would be Not ...
that Authority would Not Be There to use ... to Say that "We Can't Form Our Own Government." ... Right? ...
There would be No "Legislative-Authority" to Form the Courts, ... if the Amended 7 was not there ... .

WC:  Well, No. But the Const... you know, No ... the "Original". You'd be Stuck with the "Original Courts" ... .

PG:  Yea ... . Which are "Not Legislatively"  ...

WC:  ... which is the "Supreme Court" & the "Circuit Courts". And you'd come right ...

PG:  That's Right.  There's No "Legislative-Authority" in that,
Right?

WC:  Ok, ... and You'd Come Right Back to Where you Were.  It Doesn't Call For, or Provide Authority For, a
"Neighbor-hood Court"; if I may use that phrase.

CS:  It does at the "County-Level".

PG:  At "County-Level".  That's what I'm thinking.  That's how I've been taught.

CS:  Yeah.  That "Makes-Sense".  The "County-Level" breaks-through.  "Original Article 7"?  The "County-
Courts" have "General" Jurisdiction.

WC:  And they Still Do.  They have "Probate" Jurisdiction in 5 or 6 of the Counties, & they have "Juvenile" in
about 4 or 5.

CS:  "General Jurisdiction" encompasses Every-Matter that may be brought before the Court.  That would be "Criminal".

WC:  At the present time .., they have .., what I've just mentioned.

CS:  Then that Circumvents a "General-Jurisdiction".

WC:  Yes.  Correct.

CS:  Well, Constitutionally, under the "Original Article 7" , they had the "General Jurisdiction".

WC:  May-be so.

CS:  Maybe so ?! ... We can show it to you.  It's in Article 7 Section 1.

KG:  Mr Stewart ... I think we're going to need to .., we have to wind this up.

CS:  Well .., umm .., you guys are in Control.  Umm ... but ...

PG:  I hope we can do more of this, that's what I'm hoping this is today ..; is that we're just Presenting these
Issues.  These are what we believe to be "True", of you, of what has been "Usurped" & what-ever the word is.

WC:  I'm willing to continue this, because you both, you all have been very polite, and ...

PG: We appreciate this beyond belief.  Just to have this Discussion ... is ...

WC:  What bothers me with Chuck's Idea is that, uh, he ... forgive me ... . This is my language, & I may be
putting words in your mouth, but ... .  He wants me to make "Individual Rulings", & then it's (his) Intention to
go to the other Six Members of the Court, & there-by come-up with a "Consensus Ruling" on these rather
Critical Issues.  ...  I mean these are Fundamental Issues. ...

PG:  Extremely "Critical".

WC:  And that Isn't the Way We Work.  I Can't Say It Any Stronger Than That !  That's Not ...

PG:  What I would like to see ... this is just my own opinion ... also ...  I don't speak for anyone but myself. ...
I'd like to see more of this kind of meeting ...  I'd like to see Broader Versions of what we're doing here.
Where More People are Here.  Not just your-self ... but Other People in the Executive Departments.  I don't
know ... who-ever would talk ...  Openly ...

CS:  Sir ...

WC:  Yes.

CS:  The Present "Way of Dong Things"  ... is "Broken". ...  It's Not Addressing the Needs of "the People".

PG: That's True, Chuck.

CS:  There's a "Human Meat-Grinder" running out there, and ... and we're all Afraid of being Nabbed & being
Thrown in Jail, & Never being Heard Of Again ... at Any Moment ... .  We're "Terrorized".  This is a
"Terrorist- Government" that ... that You're Supervising Over here, sir.

PG:  Raping Children, & Protecting the Rapists.  That's what the Courts are doing.

CS:  "Terrorism" is Violation of "International Law", ... you-know. ... It's "Acts of Aggression".  People have
Got the "Right" to "Defend Them-selves" Against "Acts of Aggression".  And the ... "Justification" & the
"Lesser of the Evils" Statutes ..; Recognize ... that when ... when there's ... when there's No Other Options, ...
People have got the Right to Take-up their Guns, and ... and ... and Take "What-ever ... Remedy is Necessary".
     It's what "Sparked" the American Revolution.  * * *
     The "Courts of Justice" ... We since ... .  Under the Anglo-Saxon System, the ... those old "Courts of
Justice"  were still in place ... .  That "Anglo-Saxon" System ..; On into later England, even; ... those "Courts of
Justice" were in place.  At the Establishment of the Constitutions of the "United States of America" & the "State
of Oregon", those Constitutions had things like, in the US Constitution, the 9th & the 10th Amendment.  Oregon's
got a Similar Provision in Article 1 Section 33,  I believe, or so; that states that "All ... Rights Not Specifically
Modified", or something; here, "Are here-by Retained To The People.".  This shows "Original-Intent" to Bring-
In the Whole Traditional "Common-Law" .., to Make it "Applicable", with-in Oregon.  And that Includes the
"Rights" of the old "Hundred-Courts", & the "Precincts", & the Townships", to Elect their Own "Constables".

WC:  We're talking about Juries, now, and Courts.

CS:  Yea.

WC:  Ok.  So that's all ... I'm not going to go into ... "Townships" ..; which, we have none, although they're
mentioned in the Constitution.  Am I not right in that?

CS:  They're not mentioned in the Constitution, True.

WC:  Well, I think they Are, in one-spot.  In the "Original ... Article 7" ... some-place.  You quote it ... in here.
And I think; & I looked to see where we had had Townships, other-than ... as I mentioned the other-day ...
other-than ... for ... what "Geographical" Reference, we Don't Have "Townships".  My only Point is, is that ... I
don't see that moving into the "Courts".
     The fact that they could Elect a "Constable", ... I'm not sure they can or can't; ... but it Doesn't Mean
they can Establish their Own "Courts". ... And ... .  That's My View, in looking at the Constitution, as we talked
about, ... and ... Chapter 1 of "Oregon Revised Statutes" ..;  which merely Means that it can be "Revised", & is
"Revised"; as Compared to ... "Oregon Compiled Laws Annotated" ..; which was the Predecessor, to which they
would "Annotate" the changes with-out "Revising" them.
     Here, in Oregon, they "Revise" them Every Two Years after the Legislature goes home.   That's all ...
in my view; "Oregon Revised Statutes" ... it's nothing more ...

DG:  To me ... It says ORS's  are "Copy-Righted".  Doesn't that make that "Private-Law"?

PG:  That's another interesting ...

CS:  Digression.

WC:  I would not ... interesting thought ... I ...

PG:  So what can ... what can we do for our Next Step?  What can we do?  We have a Lot of People that are
just, like you said, they're "Desperate".

WC:  Well, I ... I want to "Reflect".  I think ... I haven't ful-filled the Mission that Chuck ... Honestly had
Hoped to be able to Reach.  But ... I've ... if you gain nothing more from this, ... is that I'm Not going to make
"Incremental Constitutional Rulings".

PG:  I didn't expect as much so ...

WC:  I hope not.  I hope not.

PG:  I thought this could be a "Process" ... we could just ... like you say ... open-talking about it ... .

WC:  Well ... but Chuck has done a lot of work.  You know.  He's done a lot of work ...

PG: Yes he's a brilliant Scholar, & that's why I keep promoting what he's doing.  And People listen to what he's
saying .., because it goes over ... it went over my head for a long time ... .  And it goes over a lot of heads.
And Most of the People we're dealing with, writing these "Laws", Statutes, as ... they have "No Concept" ... of
any of this. ... They've never even thought about any of it.  * * *

CS:  In the Spirit of Maximizing Possibilities of "Efficient-Communication", & Seeking "Resolution" of these
Different Perspectives ..;?

WC: Umm, Humm.

Cs: Is it Possible to do an "EMail-Interaction"?  I find that very effective for, you know: "Ok, well; I'll write-
down here Exactly What I Mean ... in "Precise Wording" .., & see what the other-party has in Response to that.

WC:  The Problem with it, Chuck; is that it's likely ..., based on our time today; that ... you'll be Asking My-
Opinion on Questions that I will Not be Able to Answer; or ... I "Choose" Not to Answer, for the Reasons that
I've Explained ... . So ... I don't want to hold-out any ...  False Hope.

PG:  We Need for this to Grow .

WC:  Yea, well I have ... but ...

PG:  Not because of you,  I just mean ... to me ... not so that your-self sitting here ... just asking me, one person.
... All ... these things ... . Because Every-body's Got To Answer. ...  I mean Eventually the "Whole-Government"
Has To Answer ... These Questions,  really.

(End of tape)