Transcript of Second Meeting between the Representatives of the Constitutional Christian/Common-Law "State of Oregon" & with Oregon's Civil Supreme Court's Chief-Administrative-Judge: Wallace Carson; At Salem Supreme-Court Building, Library; 1:30 - 2:40 pm; Thursday , 19-April-2001.
**************************************************************************** WC: Wallace Carson; ("Chief Administrative Head of 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 forPeopleofOregon.) JW: Jeffrey Weakley; (Pastor: God's Remnant Church, & Advanced Christian/Common-Law Scholar.) JB: Jim Bailey; (Patriot & Legal Scholar.) JN: Jack Nelson; (Christian Patriot & Legal Scholar.) _________________________________________________________________________________________ (Portion of beginning of discussion was missed being taped where Judge Carson voiced surprise that the last Transcript of the last meeting was distributed wider than he had expected. The following opens with Charles Stewart attempting to justify this wide distribution of the Transcripts of these meetings, as follows:) CS: ... so any time we can get an opportunity to make a break-thru in ... this is "What's Happening" ... you know ... . We feel ... WC: That's ... That's fine. I ... uhh ... Is Pamela going to join us today? CS: I don't believe so. WC: OK. ... Another person here. Good After-noon. JB: Hi. CS: Jim Bailey. WC: Jim, I'm Wally Carson. Good to see you, & that's Keith Garza. KG: Hi. Pleased to meet you. WC: Well do you want to wait for Dorthy? Or uhh ... CS: Umm ... I think with our limited time constraints we might as well go ahead and start ... WC: Ok. Shut the door ... CS: Yea. WC: Well let me go over some preliminary matters, & then we can try too ... After you & I had our conversation, a couple weeks ago when we set this ... CS: Yea. WC: ... that we'd try to focus ... Keith & I ... on a couple of the issues. First of all I appreciate your coming. Taking time from your own schedules to come join us here ... umm ... . The one thing I was going to mention to Pamela ... I'll mention to you ... umm ... Im trying to think of the very nice guy who writes for the ... umm ... Paul Cracksburger. Nice guy. But he had an article where this ... . Some where ... I don't ... Roger or somebody said that I'd admitted that the Oregon Courts are Corrupt. And I never have. Cause I don't believe they are Corrupt. CS: I ... Yea, I ... WC: I know a lot of people do. You do ... and Pamela and others. So I acknowledge that others don't agree with that. CS: Yea. I remember Pamela saying that. And I was talking to her about it on the Phone. And I said "Pamela, I don't think Mr Carson admitted it himself ... " WC: Yea. I don't believe it. CS: ... that the Courts were Corrupt. And ... she said: "No, No, He Admitted it." So ... So ... WC: Well it makes a difference to me because uhh ... CS: It mis-characterizes What You Said. And If we can't Keep the Record Straight, then ... then ... All is Lost. WC: That's True. Ok. Umm ... Well ... when I see Pamela again I'll mention that. But ... I'm ... What may have confused her is that I acknowledge the sincerity of her views & yours ... CS: Yea. WC: ... & that you & she both believe the ... Courts are Corrupt. And I don't share that view ... CS: Yea. WC: But I acknowledge that your entitled to your opinion. CS: Yea. WC: Umm ... The same Ground Rules. And umm ... This has been very frustrating for Charles, & I'll assure you it's been very frustrating for me ... . Because there are Times I'd just like to ... tell you what I think the answer is ... . But ... In my roles ... I have three roles here ... & Charles knows this, & you perhaps know it, Is that I'm Elected by the People to be a member of this Seven Person Body called the Oregon Supreme Court. That is the "Law" Announcing Court for the State. Nothing with the Federal, but the State. And since 1983, the Chief Justice has ... well ... And as that I am the Presiding Judge of this Court. Which means I have over-view of the Administrative Matters of this Court. But since 1983 the Chief Justice ... uhh ... has been the "Chief Administrative Head" of the "State Court System". And so I have that responsibility. And uhh ... one of the things I try to do ... & this has been very frustrating for Charles ... Is try not to ... for some reasons I'll explain, we can talk about them if you want ... I try not to make pronouncements on what I think the "Law" Is, or Ought to Be. ... well that's a little easier what it "Ought to Be". But "What it Is" ... Primarily because "That's Not the Way this Court Works." The Court works ... uhh ... as all seven members ... on Cases Presented. And what I Need to be careful about ... & Charles has honored me on this ... uhh ... not to get into Cases ... that might be coming before the Court. Because I shouldn't get information outside of what-ever's presented in the "Court Record". And so this is umm ... We have to do it in "Bits & Pieces". Well I'm going to hold to those ... Ground Rules ... simply because I think I need to do so. And what Keith & I have talked about is ... see if we can address some issues ... And there are a Couple that ... uhh ... when I talked with Chuck ... umm ... oh when-ever it was, three weeks ago or so ... There are a list of Issues. And we picked out "Special & Local Governments", & uhh ... the "Supplanting" or the "Odd" uhh ... juxtaposition of Amended Article 7 & the Original Article 7. And with Keith's help, I've tried to pull together ... I have pulled together ... some previous ... and their old ... Decisions by the Supreme Court, that I think firmly Settle the Issue, unless its raised again, & we'll come to that in due course. And then there was one that came out of our ... my conversation ... or something ... with KPAM ... when you ... CS: Yea. WC: ... with Eric Mason, I think, is the Reporter that called me & said he talked with you, & he apparently got a Tape, & was going to do a weak's long piece, in segments. And I didn't hear any of it, so uhh ... I wasn't in my car & that's where I listen to the radio mostly . But you mentioned uhh ... something grew out of that ... "Administration of Force Force vs Violence". And I'm not sure I understood ... I took notes, but I ... I'm not sure I knew what you were saying. Do you want to start there ... ? CS: Yea. WC: Or maybe anything else you want to start off with. JB: Just as a quick aside. WC: Sure. JB: You said something about the "Chief Administrative Officer". And I would like to know "What Cites cover that Duty?" Those Duties. Or is it in Statutes? WC: Oh. Chapter 1. JB: Right at the beginning. CS: Yea. 1.002 or something like that? WC: (Judge Carson went to a shelf & got a statute book to show the statute ... garbled wording, people moving.) CS: (suppressed conversation with JW, on different subject, as:) Umm . I have no objection to that. I don't know how ... the Judge feels about that. (then tape comes back to the main subject, as follows:) JB: Well, we don't have to ... I just need the cite. WC: No. JB: I can find it on-line. (Garbled recording as Judge Carson explains Statute). Ok. Thank You. WC: You bet. JB: I'm Satisfied. WC: Oh and one thing I should say, that there is confusion. ... may want to get back to it. The "State Court System" as I refer to it, is umm ... over which I have control ... is the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Tax Court, & the Circuit Courts. Now there are two other ... as you know ... there are two other "Courts" Systems out there. One is the "Justice of the Peace" Courts. And the "Municipal" Courts. And there are about 35 ... 36 JP Courts ... uhh ... scattered around the state ... and mostly in rural areas. And there are "Municipal Courts". And maybe as many as 200 of those. And they don't fall under my Jurisdiction ... as "Administrator", or ... or ... any-thing else, for that matter. And so ... JN: They're Not "Judicial Courts?. WC: Well No. Uhh ... they Are "Judicial Courts". But their not part of the "State System". That's all I ... make any difference ... for instance ... "Justice of the Peace Courts", or "Justice Courts" are mentioned in the statute & provided for by statute. And so they are " Justice Courts" or "Justice of the Peace Courts". And their ... & that's of course a bone of contention that Charles may have, but the Constitution, as I understand ... looking at the material here ... allows the legislature to establish ... the Constitution says there will be a "Supreme Court". And then such other Courts ... & that's not a direct quote ... such other Courts as the Legislature may provide. Well "Justice of the Peace Courts" ... I know Charles ... because he has written on it ... uhh ... have been with us for a long time. And for instance ... for some time we had District Courts in Oregon. And then by Legislation ... 98 ... January 15th, 98 or so, the Legislature abolished District Courts, consolidated them with Circuit Courts. So we only have one level of Trail Court. And that's ... in my view, and this court's view ... it's already provided for by the Legislature to Set the Court System. So the "Justice Courts" are there. I think there is a provision ... are provisions in the Statutes dealing with "Municipalities", or "Municipal Courts". So their both rooted in the Statute. So they are (garbled ... "Justice Courts"?) JB: Are they ... are they not bound by the Constitution? WC: Umm. I would think so. JB: Ok. Seems to me ... that uhh ... for example ... in automotive ... your vehicle code ... & for example ... this being in Portland. Uhh ... There are a number of Ordinances I guess that umm ... regarding ... Seizure of Vehicles. Umm ... and essentially without "Due Process". CS: Yea. Well we can probably get into that as the whole thing proceeds here Jim. JB: All right. I just ... That's an area of interest to me. CS: Well ... WC: Well that does prompt one thing. The ... In Multnomah County ... or in Portland ... again by Legislation ... they no longer have a "Municipal Court". You probably know this. And the Circuit Courts for Multnomah County ... the State Circuit Court for Multnomah County ... provides the Judicial Resources for the City of Portland. JB: Ok. WC: So, you wind up paying your tickets in Portland in the Court-house. Where-as if you've got a ticket ... to be too late as Charles has suggested, I have to be out of here at 2:30 ... If you get a ticket, you don't go to a Court- house to pay the ticket ... ehh "State" Court-house ... you go to City Court-house. I ... ok ... CS: Umm ... Jeff raised a preliminary point here ... I don't know how you feel about it, but umm ... a lot of us take our Christianity pretty seriously ... Would you have any objection to our opening with Prayer? WC: Not at all. CS: Jeff? JW: Dear Heavenly Father, we just pray that you'd be with us now as we talk. That your Spirit would govern our hearts and our passions. That we will try to work together for a Meeting of the Minds, & do it all (with?) Praise in You, and ask that You receive all the Glory. These things we pray, in Jesus name, Amen. WC: Amen. ... Thank you. CS: Thank You. ... Umm ... . Yea ... . The Research ... . Did ... ? WC: Yea. ... I ... CS: Why don't we go ahead and cover that ... WC: Here ... the uhh ... let me get the Constitution ... the uhh ... It has been litigated Charles you know ... I think in fact you refer to it in some of your materials ... I'm going to have to apologize to you I've re-read some ... to get some of this back in my head ... but some I have not, ... ok. ... What were talking about ... & I'm sure your up on it as well ... Charles is quite informed on it ... When in 1910 the People passed an Amended Judicial Article, or Article 7; the Judicial Department; Umm they did not repeal ... these are my terms ... did not repeal the Original Constitution, Article 7 ... which had been from back preceding the DD Code, & up through our Constitutional Convention ... which ended what, September 18th 1857. Umm... so they ... had the Amended Article, & ... here's what ... get the stuff. These are a couple of cases, & I apologize I ... didn't think to have extra copies . CS: That's ok. We can make copies. WC: You can find these. And umm ... What I'm doing here ... so you understand ... I'm comfortable in telling you ... or sharing with you what this Court has said ... before ... about the questions ... and to the extent I can find them. See I cant practice Law, so I'm not your Legal Advisor. I cant render "Advisory Opinions", either because I'm only one member of the Court & cant speak (for?) the Full Court. But I think ... I have come to where I can say: "OK. When I can find where this Court has stated, ... I think reasonably clearly, that's my own observation ... in the areas that you've raised some concern, then I feel comfortable in sharing it with you & letting you have ... I don't expect an answer today ... letting you take a look at it. So the Issue is ... Ok, 1910 ... the Oregonians favored a ... a Constitutional Amendment, that put in a new Article 7. And I'm cutting to the chase, but it ... it's mentioned in here ... it had the effect of Not Repealing the Original Article 7. Which is Curious. And I think I said "Curious", when Pamela was here. I think I read that in your minutes. It is "Curious". I don't know quite why they ... did that. But they did. It had the effect ... & I'll ... these are my understanding of what these pieces say ... . It had the effect of Reducing the Original Article 7 to Statutory form. The way they did that ... if there is a clear Conflict between the Amended & the Original, the Amended Controls. In many places there were things mentioned in the Original that were not repeated, or reflected, in the Amendment. But my understanding is, is that they are reduced to Statutory ... because they said "As May be Amended by the Legislature." And the Legislature, as you know Can't Amend the Constitution. So ... they may try ... JB: Umm ... Al-right. I'm sure Chuck has mentioned "State Ex Rel: Madden v Crawford" ? WC: I'm sure he has. CS: The "Hiatus"? JB: Well in terms of ... the fact that the Courts have ... I'm not even sure about the Court of Appeals ... WC: We didn't have a Court of Appeals in those days. We've only had that since ... JB: Only ... Essentially ... The way I remember "Madden v Crawford" is ... the "Supreme Court" is the Only Lawful "Judicial Court". And the rest are under the Authority of the State Legislature ... & there-fore no-longer an "Independent Judiciary". WC: Well ... That's not the way I read either ... the Crawford case, or Holman or Harnam. And I'll just give these to you . CS: Yea. That's good enough. We've already pretty-well exhausted that line of discussion. Umm ... WC: There's a question on ... Keith, you want to see ... KG: I want to see actually if Dorothy is out there. There's people ... CS: She might be waiting ... WC: Tour, Yea. CS: Thank you Keith. KG: Sure. JW: This over the "Supplanted" Issue? WC: Yea. JW: Ok. I wanted to make sure I had that right. WC: Which is ... I know ... Pamela was focused on it ... & so has Charles. Uhh ... "Supplanted" ... if you look it up in a common dictionary ... has some dark ... uhh ... definitions ... CS: Precisely. WC: ... but I don't share those, with you. Although I acknowledge what you said before. Well, it's in your written material. JW: So your of the opinion; all that refers to is reducing it to is "Statutory", in a conflict. WC: Well actually ... this is more my idea. It started out that ... their both there ... and their both printed ... and the over-riding one is the "Amended" Article. That's basically what the courts ... And the Legislature ... cause the Legislature can operate Only within the terms of the Constitution. Both Federal & State. And so ... It gives authority ... re-names us ... does not, with the difference between the old & the new ... I think they both had "Justice of the Peace Courts", & "Circuit Courts". And they are not mentioned ion the "Amended", but instead the Legislature is given the authority to provide for ... this is my language, I can look at it a bit later ... "to provide for such other courts" as they deem appropriate. And that's the "Court of Appeals" that the Legislature provided for in 1969 ... And, as much as I've mentioned; they abolished "District Courts" ... and Consolidated them with "Circuit Courts". So the way the System is operating, as I understand it, is that ... number one, the Article Amended ... Number Seven Amended, Controls. ... And to the extent it Conflicts with the Old ... uhh ... Original Article Seven, it Replaces it, or "It's Gone"; as you would expect any "New "Law" to Replace "Old Law" . But that leaves this ... anomalus area that we still have in here ... where the New Version did not address some of the matters addressed in the First One. What it Does Say, is that they would make it "As Changed by Law". My understanding ... and I think it's (relevant?) to the "Hiatus" ... is that certainly ... & its in those cases, as I recall, ... that when they put this in, they anticipated there would be a move ... until it could ... obviously the Legislature's not in session when we vote in November. We vote in even numbered years, & normally the Legislature isn't even here. And so ... As I think that points out, it that there's a "Hiatus" as you move from the New or the Amended, ... uhh ... Move from the Original to the Amended ... so things will re ... to stay until the Legislature changes. So ... It gets back to the Idea that it's ... by virtue of a Change ... the Legislature has the Authority to Set-Up the Court System; ... Other-than the "Supreme Court". ... So they can do ... the other Courts. And I think those are (created?) ... the Court of Appeals, ... the Tax Court, which I think came in in '60. And it's really ... a Circuit Court, ... but it handles all the Tax Matters. And then the Circuit Court, ... Now are the "State Court System". ... Which I have a ... then I ... (garbled, train going by) ... the Statutes also talk about ... I know they do ... the "Justice of the Peace Courts", and others. And I view those as "Judge Courts". ... So ... And I realize that's not necessarily universally held; ... but that's my view. And I think that's what the Cases suggest. JB: Again though ... Then your saying that these Circuit Courts are run by the Constitution. That's Correct? WC: Yes. JB: Ok. ... Then uhh ... I have seen it ... since where for example ... Uhh ... there's the uhh ... An Officer is Both Witness & Prosecuting, or a Prosecutor. And also the value, in terms of uhh ... in terms of a Fine and like ... are well over $21.00. Now ... I don't remember which specific section ... article of the Bill of Rights specifies a "Jury Trail" in cases where uhh ... CS: That's Federal. Article Seven. The 7th Amendment, talks about "Jury Trail" shall be Guaranteed in any case over $20.00. JB: Ok ... CS: But ... Let me take the ball here can you Jim? JB: Sure. CS: Thank you sir. ... Umm ... Can we focus on our "Special & Local" Right ... of our Interpretation that we've got the Right to "Self-Govern" under the "Special & Local" Jurisdictions. I think that was the First Item that ... we mentioned. WC: Yea ... Let me umm ... KG: You already turned over the ... I think it's up here. (directing Judge Carson to items.) WC: What is the Article again? Refresh my memory. CS: Article 4 Section 23. WC: Cause you & I talked about that. (inaudible wording) KG: I think these pertain to Article Seven. I have some other cases. (muffled wording) That's a recent "Court of Appeals" Case. It discusses the ... What I tried to do in assisting the Chief Justice on this ... was to provide umm ... what I called "General Authority". I didn't try to find cases that would pertain to resolving a particular set of facts. But instead, what I tried to find ... were cases from the Court that discussed Article 4 Section 23 ... in rather broad terms. Often times you'll have a Court ... with-in the Courts deciding a case, ... you'll have an "Introduction" to this Opinion, you'll have a "Statement of the Facts", you'll have a General Introduction of Summary of the "Area of Law" that it contains, and then it'll move in to a real specific ... focused application . And what I tried to find were the cases that had best developed the most expansive discussions of the General Law as it pertains to Article 4 Section 23. So what those cases probably ... or the excerpts of those case wont have any ... any very detailed discussions about what to do ... what the effects of a claim under Article 4 Section 23 ... that a particular Law is either "Local" or "Special", under a set of circumstances. But just some general considerations about: "What does the term "Special" Mean?" "What does the term "Local" Mean?" ... in Contra-Distinction to "General Laws". And so ... And their's actually in this particular area, it's a fairly ... you know ... there's some fairly tight statements about how courts are suppose to Apply ... umm ... Article 4 Section 23, in a "General" sense. So, I hope I'm being clear. I just tried to give some cases, that if you were to read ... the high-lighted portions ... which I don't think yours have high-lights on them. I have high-lighted them at one time. CS: I can look at it later. KG: Sure CS: But, you don't have any pat-answers on our basic concerns about ... the authority if these Jurisdictions to ... to responsibly "Self-Govern", hold their own Jury Trails, & get "Comity", "Full Faith & Credit" there-under, do you? WC: I ... I have some concern, ... & I'll address it. Let me say first of all Section 23, I don't think gets you ... where you want to get. What it says ... as I understand it .... and I know there are cases on this ... . That the Legislature cannot pass a "Special", or "Local" Laws. CS: True. WC: Ok. So the Question Is: "What Is a "Special or Local Law"? CS: Well that's "Part" of the Question. WC: But that's the First Part of the Question, though, Isn't it? Caus ... Your looking at a Prohibition here, saying that Legislature, Constitutionally, can-not enact ... and then a long list of ... granting divorces ... vacating roads ... CS: Ok, ... But Part of those "Special & Local Laws", are the "Courts of Justice", & the Jurisdiction of "Justices of the Peace". WC: Um-humm. CS: Ok. And so ... what I see as the Kernel of Information of Concern that's Important to Extract from the whole thing, is that ... that these "Courts of Justice", & "Justices of the Peace", & "Constables", ... their Beyond the Regulatory Authority of the State's Legislature. WC: Ok. That;'s where we disagree. CS: Ok, Well ... WC: Because ... because ... What the Definition ... What "Special & Local Laws" mean. Now ... as a General ... as a General Rule, the Legislature can provide for the Circuit Courts. Uhh... That's a "General Law". And it can provide for the "Justice of the Peace Courts". A "General Law". Where they appear to be ... is when you have a "Special Law" , & I should have pulled out some of the cases that talk about "Special or Local Laws". ... But they are a particular breed, where the Legislature is Prohibited from passing a Law granting me a Divorce from my wife. Now they can pass, in my view ... The Legislature can pass Laws in Chapter 107 of ORS: "How you get a Divorce". That's a "General Law". It's not a "Special" Law. And it's not a "Local" Law. And their's a big case that came out of Multnomah County ... on the State setting Speeds for Automobiles. Because Multnomah County ...or Portland ... one or the other ... probably Portland ... set it's own Speed Limits. And they weren't the Same. And this Court held, that the State Could ... as a General Law ... pass a Speed Limit ... 20 miles an hour in a business district, & that was binding on the Cities & the Counties. And it wasn't a "Special" Law. I think it mentioned that. Or a "Local" Law. It was a State-wide Law. And further, ... that because it had some Criminal Aspects ... if you Violate it ... it had to be Uniform because another part of the Constitution says that "State" Law Controls in Criminal Matters. Or over-rides. Those are not the (precise) words ... So ... I think ... All I'm trying to do, is find some areas ... . But ... I don't know that I'm making myself clear ... but one of the Statutes said for a long time, "In Counties over 400,000" . ... That's a "General Law" ... "In All Counties over 400,000. In Oregon. ... There's Only One. CS: Yea. WC: Multnomah County. To live there. Umm ... But I think that was approved ... I'm not sure about that. But it was ... that was a "General Law". Because every County that got to 400,000 or what-ever, qualified. So umm ... what their saying ... is you can't have a "Special Law" ... . They can write the Criminal Code. See what your drawing from this ... (garbled, train passing) correct me ... you looking at ... says you can't have a "Special or Local Laws", & then it has the List of things you can't have a "Special or Local Laws" ... CS: Yea. Thank you train. (A joke about the train noise, interrupting, & a bit of discussion & more jokes ensued about it, with laughter, all of which is not transcribed here. ) WC: ... So ... at first blush ... you look at this ... and say well the Legislature Can't Pass Legislation for the Punishment of Crimes & Misdemeanors. Well ... You have to be careful, because what it says is you can't pass a "Special or Local Law". It does Not say ... that you cant pass State Laws. CS: Umm, Umm, Umm ... The ... . After ... the "Special or Local Laws" Phraseology, there's a Comma. " In any of the following enumerated cases", Comma ... then it goes on ... "That is to Say ...". Those four words, "That is to Say" ... . That to me ... looks like it's Defining ... what ... the Authors ... of the Constitution ... at that point ... considered to be "Special or Local Laws". They ... They Knew that ... the terms were rather ambiguous & flexible, and so they said: "The Legislature Shall Not Pass Special or Local Laws; blah, blah, blah; That is to Say; Regulating the Jurisdiction & Duties of Justices of the Peace & Constables, ... " WC: With all due respect, I think as a matter of grammar, you reading it Backwards. The Phrase "That is to Say", Modifies the Enumerated Cases ... to Me. It does not go back up, & Modify "Special or Local Laws". That would be my position. CS: Well it's not "Modifying" them. It's "Defining" them. WC: Well. ... In this case it says. But ... It's Attached ... following the Comma, to "Enumerated Cases". It doesn't go back, to "Special or Local Laws". It could say, I think is ... Jack was ... maybe ... I wont say what he was thinking ... (inaudible) ... But umm ... that umm ... "That is to Say", or "To Wit" or ... something. And it's not "To Wit: Special or Local Laws", it's saying "The Following Enumerated Cases". The way I look at it is (that?) you cant ... you can have "Special or Local Laws" ... if you don't bump up against any of these "following enumerated cases". But in these cases, you can't have "Special or Local Laws". CS: Ok, ... JW: They'd have to be "General". WC: Yea. KG: For those kind of cases ... I think there actually are ... when I was doing some of the research. Umm ... Decisions from the Court ... in the past have said: "Oh, It's perfectly appropriate to have a "Special Law" or a "Local Law", just so long as it doesn't fall into one of these Categories. If it falls into one of these Categories, the Legislation has to be "General". It cant be either "Special or Local". WC: For instance, taking the ... changing ... go ahead. JB: I vaguely remember this ... before we started on this ... is that the Legislature shall pass no "Special or Local Laws". WC: In the "Special or Local Laws" ... in these "Enumerated Cases". JB: Ok. In (only?) those cases. CS: These cases cover a Lot of stuff. WC: They do. Their very broad. Very broad. But if you look at them ... and ... uhh ... you ... . For instance the "Changing the Names of Persons". The Legislature, can-not by "Special or Local Law" Change my Name. I can. And "How do I do it?". I do it according to a "General Law", which the Legislature Passed on How I can Change my Name. JB: Ok. I was just mis-understanding the uhh ... Prohibition of Special Laws. ... a part of the Prohibition. WC: In these. But as Charles said, It's a fairly Broad ... uhh ... laundry list of things. JB: Right. WC: Uhh ... But yes, there can be "Special or Local Laws" ... uhh ... but you cant have them in these areas. But then the Question is "Special or Local". For instance ... It gets ... it gets ... Your Understanding ... gets you to your point ... that: "the Legislature Can't Deal in Any of These Areas". And I say: "They Can't Deal in any of these Areas by Special or Local Laws". Which leads me to the belief that they "Can" Provide for the Jurisdiction & Duties of "Justices of the Peace, & of Constables" on a "General Law". Not "Judge Carson" or "Constable Carson", ... but for "General". And "For the Punishment of Crimes & Misdemeanors". The Legislature has ... from territorial days, or soon certain there-after; provided certain Crimes & Punishments & Fines, and whatever ... . "Regulating the Practice in Courts of Justice", Providing for Changing ... well I wont read the list ... you've got it ... But ... They have ... there are Statutes there, and it May "Beg the Question". ... You would be Entitled to Say" "Well the Fact that they've done it, doesn't mean they've done it correctly." And I acknowledge that. I think how-ever, when you look at "Special or Local Laws", it means you can't change my name, but You Can certainly Provide a Statute that Allows People to Change their Names. That's the Hierarchy that I look at. And I think I'm right. And I think there are Cases which suggest that. So ... If ... If For the Moment, If I'm Right, then that doesn't Create the Void that you use ... Structure ... you Structure in Order to put up "Local Courts". Or some other type. And the Question I would have, then, was; ... . Well, Where is the Authority in the Constitution, the Direct Authority in the Constitution ... or in Statutes. For Instance; J.P. Courts, which are mentioned here, are regulated by Statute. "General" Statute. And, they are, as you know, created by County Commissioners ... and ... alright Ill quit rambling ... CS: (laughter) Umm ... You have a Comment Jeff? JW: So ... Well I was just ... If I'm Drawing this Conclusion ... So your saying that this umm ... . This Article 4 Section 23 ... is not the proper Authority ... for ... a "Common-Law Court". WC: I don't see anything in there that suggests it. JW: Ok. WC: Now maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe there is something else. But what it is; It's a Speech to the Legislature. It's not a Speech to City Councils, or Common-Law Courts, or anybody else. You can tell by the terms, ... what their saying is: "The Legislative Assembly Cant Do This". JW: Right. WC: And there's only one of those. And "they can't to this.". So it's a Prohibition of what they can do, as I have defined it, narrowly. And it doesn't speak to any-body doing anything else. So I haven't jumped to the Answer to it. But I don't see in 4 - 23 , Authority for anybody to do anything. Anywhere. ... Do you dis-agree with that Jeff? JW: I can understand how you have come to that conclusion. In my mind though. I don't really need a specific Statute to get Authority. Article 1 Section 1 says: "All Authority is vested in the People." WC: Umm Humm. JW: And "Common-Law Courts" are as Old as the "Common-Law". The Authority comes from the People. The Moment that God gives them Live, we have the Authority. And once we come of age, what-ever that may be ... We have the Authority to Come Together in a "Social- Compact". I don't think that it ... (sigh). The "Statutes" come from Us. WC: That's true. CS: As well as the Constitution. JW: Yes. You-know ... Long before there was ever a Church, to Sanctify Marriage, God gave Eve to Adam. The Authority for forming Government comes from People who Created Government. And they got it from God Him- self. So ... Just because you cant necessarily find a specific Statute, or a place in the Constitution to Authorize it, Doesn't Mean the Authority is Not There. WC: I understand what your saying. And there certainly is "Common-Law". But it ... "Common-Law Courts", uhh ... it's interesting: "It's been since Common-Law". ... But Not "Free-Wheeling". At least in our Anglo-Saxon History, which you've done a lot of research on. They were Connected. They weren't "Free-Wheeling" out in the Community; as I don't know ... . They were from the King. JW: Have you ever seen ... seen "Allegheny Uprising", ... John Wayne Movie? WC: Ump umm. JW: That shows right before the American Civil War ... and actually they did good Historical Research when they made the movie. This shows how the Local Community, had their Courts. And for the most part, I think that's our under-standing. CS: Yea. They jus ... they had a problem with one of the Red Coats, in one of the Commanding Positions, & they just said: "Well, Let's form a Jury,& Try this Case.". And the Jury Tried it, & I forget what the technicality of Law was, but they had their Jury Verdict, & they used that as Authority to Stand Up against the Tyranny which the Red Coats were bringing in. Umm ... Further, to maybe shift over a little bit to something that might be more productive, is ... WC: Could I just interupt ... CS: Sure ... WC: We had "Wolf Meetings", ... and also the (Yuing?) State, were two events that happened in this State ... that got us started on "Law", & on Eradicating Wolves. They came together and had to have some-body to do that. And uhh ... they were all just Pioneers (garbled) Estate, They had to have a "Probate Judge", to Probate it. And so that's part of our History, so ... go ahead ... CS: Umm ... The Counties, the County Courts? Umm ... In Article Seven Original, Section 1? ... It speaks of them as being "Courts of General Jurisdiction"? Their among the three ... the Supreme Court, County Courts, & Circuit Courts? WC: Right. CS: Umm ... And ... I'm rather unclear as to how your interpretation of ... of relegating Original Article 7 to the status of Statute would cause the whole thing to unfold. But with uhh ... our interpretation that this is "Good Authority", umm ... the phrase "General Jurisdiction" ... Black's Law Dictionary defines that as ... as a general jurisdiction having the Authority to umm ... Try Any Case that comes before it; uhh ... within the Parameters off General Common-Law. That would Include all Crimes ... all ... and I think I've got ... WC: No. I understand it. ... Let's talk about just what this says. ... And your as able, or better than I, to be able to read it. But it said ... this is the Original ... and the Supreme Court, & they spelled it a little different than we spell it today ... uhh, & Circuit Courts, & uhh ... County Courts; shall be "Courts of Record", and you know what that means, having General Jurisdiction; and then Don't Forget This Piece: "To be Defined, Limited, & Regulated by Law; in accordance with this Constitution.". Well ... You have to understand that how things are ... "Defined", or "Regulated", or "Limited" ... "by Law"; ... Means, the Legislature does it. CS: Uhh ... I think Not. ... Umm ... uhh ... Can I show you a few cites on that? WC: Sure. CS: Umm ... some over-kill here ... WC: That's fine. You certainly spend a lot of your time working on this. So ... CS: Umm ... This uhh .. Yea ... uhh ... this case-law citation out of Words & Phrases ... shows that uhh ... Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, when it said "Common-Law" it "is meant what the Constitution denominated in the Third Article as "Law"," ... it's self. And this & numerous other cases, ... it shows that when it's talking about ... in phrases "By Law" or "According to Law" ... ? WC: Umm humm ... CS: Generally ... in ... in technical precision ... as some of the other cases show, ... that Term is the equivalent of "Common-Law". WC: That's not my understanding. And ... that may be ... I'm not denying what your saying here ... is that there is "Common-Law". But the Statutes Control "Common-Law". CS: That would subject them to "Majoritarianism". ... Uhh ... The Majority of the Legislature would be Controlling ... would be the Source then. What about ... to back up a little bit ... there's a document that's been address in our ... the thicker publication ... that I gave you ... "Administrative Justice & the Supremacy of Law"? WC: Ok. I 've got it. CS: Umm ... yea. And I think I cited it in a few of ... my documents there. WC: This one. CS: Yes. That uhh ... text indicates that ... that there are Two Separate Definitions of "Law" basically. There's ... there's one that's based up-on the "Rule of Law" ... the "Supremacy of Law"; where ... which is the equivalent of basically "Common-Law/Due Process of Law", where Unanimous Jury Trails are to be Invoked. It get's back to "Magna Carta". And umm ... uhh ... the declaration in uhh ... Section 39 there I believe, that ... the ... the Civil Government ... the King at that time ... would Not Proceed against "Any Man" ... without ... Judgement by a Jury of his Peers & the "Law of the Land". The phrase "Law fo the Land" is synonymous with ... with "Due Process of Law", & it links to "Common-Law". ... Ok? ... Well that shows that ... that there's Not Suppose to be any Infringement of the Rights of the People, ... without that "Common-Law/Due Process of Law" being invoked. WC: Ok. But it doesn't have to be the Same that was in the 15th, 16th, 18th, 19th, Centuries, does it? Or are you saying it does? CS: Well the Doctrine of the "Supremacy of Law", as set forth in what Mr Dickenson wrote, in the text there; shows that this is the ... the Fundamental Core-Set of Values that America & Oregon were Constitutionally founded upon. WC: So if the Constitution of Oregon Disagrees or Conflicts with "Common-Law", it in turn is In-Correct then? CS: Well, I believe a close reading of the Constitution of Oregon, ... Does Harmonize with Common-Law. WC: Well that may be. I'm not arguing that. I just ... But I'm trying to get your hierarchal ... CS: Yes. WC: So your answer should be ... I think "Yes". That if the Common-Law ... had some other provision. And the Oregon Constitution had a Different Provision. Then it it'self would be internally in Conflict with the Common-Law, and In-Valid. Wouldn't ... CS: Umm ... JB: Or why not in Conflict with the United States Constitution. JW: Oh ... We had that in effect. Our Constitution said that "Negroes" were "Not People". WC: Umm humm. JW: And ... and the Constitution ... was In-Valid. It took time for the People to Realize ... "Hey, the Constitution Is Wrong, were going to have to change it here.". To Agree ... with the "Common-Law". CS: See ... Their Both uhh ... WC: Well ... that's ... . ... That's a good point. CS: The Constitution is also synonymous with "Organic Law"? WC: Can be. CS: Ok. It ... And Com ... WC: I use that phrase, ... & you do to. So, ... "Yeah". CS: Yes. Umm ... and "Organic Law" is "Flexible". It's been termed a "Living/Breathing Constitution", ... it seems whenever it's Convenient to take it Down-hill, instead of Up-hill. But I ... WC: I'll let you make your Political Statement. (garbled words, laughter) CS: (laughter) Thanks, I gotta get those in there. (laughter) ... But ... but that Principle is basically a "Common-Law Principle". And there is Numerous Citations ... "American Jurisprudence" ... I think I've quoted ... says that the Constitutions "Cherished" the "Common-Law". When citing phrases from the "Bill of Rights", & things like that, their to be Interpreted in Light of those Common-Law Terms. ... Umm ... and so that Am-Jur Citation that the Founders "Cherished" the "Common-Law", umm Links the Constitution to the "Common-Law"; & their Both Harmonized on Principles for what is set forth in the Preamble: "The Peace, Safety, & Happiness of the People.". Ok. ... "The Peace, Safety, & Happiness of the People", are "Secured" through Unanimous Twelve Person Jury Trails. That's been Written in Stone for over a Thousand Years. WC: So, Oregon's Constitution that permits less than Unanimous ... It Violates the Common-Law & should be Changed. CS: True. JW: I would say ... only ... . People can Voluntarily Waive Rights. WC: Sure. JW: But I would say "Forcing" someone to give up a Right, well ... I like my "Right to Life". And if somebody points a gun that's in front of me, & pulls the trigger; Against my Will; I Don't Like That. But ... you-know ... if someone wants to ... they ... ok ... I'll go with a six person Jury. WC: Well this is getting back to the Point I was ... and it ... it goes No-Where. ... But that is that ... that, as Charles points out, the "Twelve Tried & True" ... was uhh ... invented (under Common-Law? (garbled)) ... . We don't have that in Oregon. And either on the Civil or the Criminal Side, it's Not a Requirement. And Charles is Consistent. That is ... this Court has held it is Constitutional. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is Constitutional; their Constitution, not our Constitution. Uhh ... but ... it is in direct abrogation of the Common-Law. JW: That is Correct. WC: That is the only point I'm making . I'm not arguing for it or ... what ... . But I'm trying to understand Charles Position, & that is that ... this Court has ... and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that ... something that Deviates from the Common-Law ... by Statute ... by the Constitution ... that is Permissible. Now their's a "Higher Law", I suppose ... & Segregation & Miscegenation we had in our ... Constitution for a long time ... because it was appropriate at the Time. And I don't think it Violated the Common-Law; ... when it was passed originally. And as you are aware ... there are Several references in our Constitution that refer to when the Population of the State gets to be 500,000 White Men, or something; ... Violates Two of our Current Beliefs. And ... That was Constitutional, I would Argue, at the time, both Federal & State. Because, in those days, Incorrectly; but in those days, that's how we Counted People. Blacks & Females, for Voting Purposes, Weren't "People". That was Wrong. And we changed that. But ... I'm not sure that Violated the "Common-Law", to have it in the Constitution. So ... I'm ... We've ... come of Age, ... and become better by it, I think, by taking those phrases out, I would agree. But I'm ... trying to understand how ... to recall, what we were trying to say. And you made your point very well, and that is that: I don't think Article 4 - 23, gets you any-where. Then the Question that you raised is, "Well, Ok; You Don't Need to Find your Authority for Common-Law Courts", because "Your of Common-Law". And I ... I Doubt That. Not the "Common-Law", but I don't ... know of ... I Need Some Authority ... either in the Common-Law ... Not History ... but in the Common-Law, that would suggest ... that today ... there is such a thing as a "Common-Law Court". Now I know uhh ... "Politically" there is. There are groups, ... in fact there was a group ... there was a group that called itself the "Common-Law Supreme Court of Oregon". Umm ... CS: Yea. James Gulliford. Yea. JW: I ... Met & Set ... ? WC: Salem & Portland, I think were, ... . Well I ... . But ... umm ... I ... . One at a time; "Where Do You Find the Authority for that"? (end of side 1 of tape. small break in continuity here.) WC: ... point ... where the Constitution is Contrary to the Common-Law, ... Common-Law has to Yield to the Constitution. I Think. Correct me on that. I know You Don't Agree with it. CS: Well ... umm ... . It Depends. See there's there's Two Different Definitions of "Common-Law", & there's Two Different Definitions of "Constitution". (laughter) WC: At Least Two of Each. CS: Yea. Yea. ... So ... and ... . But ... There's Certain Fundamentals. The Preamble, & Article 1 Section 1, ... that talk about the "Peace, Safety, & Welfare" of the People? This is Bedrock. You know. And ... and these were protected ... these were ... were the Avowed "Purpose" of ... of Both the "Constitution" & the "Common-Law". And see ... uhh ... what the ... the "Later Definition" of the "Common-Law", was Post-Anglo/Saxon; after the "Norman Conquest", & the "Roman" Influences came in, with ... with their tendencies towards Slave-Trading, & things like this. Umm ... the Pre-Norman-Conquest, umm ... "Common-Law"; was ... was where the "Neighborhood Juries", with the proper "Venue" & stuff, as "Self-Governing" Entities, were ... were "All Through-out the Kingdom", and ... and they Progressed on Up. As Blackstone wrote ... I think I mentioned that ... In ... That it Progressed Up ... in a Hierarchy, until "the Whole of the Kingdom was Plentifully Watered", with ... with "Justice". ... They ... they Administered their own "Justice", through "Friends & Neighbors", that were Concerned for the "Welfare of the Community". Uhh ... And ... and the "King", was the Person that was Most Trusted at the Top of the Hierarchy. It "Flowed" from ... from ... the Bottom, ... Up. As People had More & More Confidence in their Elected Leaders at the Precincts & the County, then the County went to the St ... you-know figuratively a "State" Jurisdiction, a Broader Jurisdiction; & then to the "Nation". And the "Nation" was the Guy with the Most Confidence in the People. Uhh ... "From" the People. Instead of, ... Chaos & Confusion, Majority Rule; Powerful Private Special Interest Groups, with a Big Bank Roll, get to Finance ... the Governor or the President, & "Boom". He gets to tell every-body what to do, & they toe the line, through "Malum Prohibitum". It's a "Fundamental Shift", It's the Difference between Daylight & Darkness. You have the People bringing forth their Own Leaders; or else you have a Private Special Interest Group with an immense amount of Power, "Commanding"; Assuming an "Authoritarian Position", & Bamboozling all kinds of People, & ... & Financing "Propaganda Campaigns" to "Divide & Conquer" & Spilt; & make them ... Split them into "Warring Factions", so that there's No Peace, No Harmony. And ... and what you get down to, a neighbor lady of mine is a retired psychologist. She calls them "Psychopaths". Err ... at least the term is applicable. ... And so what you've got there, is ... is ... when ... when you've got a "Top-Down" Hierarchy like that; You've Got "Competing Psychopaths" at ... at the Top of the Power Structure. And ... you know like Adolph Hitler, might Win for a while; and then Joseph Stalin uhh ... Wins. And ... you know ... Look at the situation of East Germany there ... you know... . What was better? Uhh ... living under Adolph Hitler, or living under Joseph Stalin? You know. One "Psychopath" for another. And ... and to perhaps a less ... "Evil" ... umm ... inclination in the specifics, ... but certainly the Same General Principle, is applying Under Our Current Situation. There's Powerful Special Interest Groups that ... that are Well Financed, umm ... through the Economic System, that we haven't even touched on yet, you know. The whole Economic System was to be based on Gold & Silver; & were Way out of whack with that. Umm ... but ... the ... . We've got Powerful Ability to Control the Electoral Process. And the People are basically Bamboozled & Manipulated. Not to mention the ... the ... umm ... Vote Process ... there's concerns over Vote Fraud, and all kinds of things going on, to where ... . It's a "Zoo". It's a "Zoo". And ... but ... the "Common-Law", prior to the Anglo/Saxon; or prior to the Norman Conquest under the Anglo-Saxons & Celtic Peoples; was ... that ... that gets you back to your older Israelite, and ... process where it was really seriously linked into the Christianity thing. Umm ... JW: The "Power was In the People", back then. And ... WC: Well, I had a Different History than you had. Because I remember some of the Bloodiest Wars ever took place was in England. And uhh ... while ... before the Norman Conquest, & after; & before the Magna Carta, there was a Reason for the Magna Carta ... . You cant ... to me, in my view, Paint the Common-Law Days as Wonderful Days with Harmony & Peace & every-body living together. JW: What About ... WC: My History, it Didn't Happen That Way !!! JW: There was War with Nations. But I ... what I think he's was saying is , "Within their Community", they were operating ... . And if they had some-one in their Community "Stealing"; the Community came together & said: "Bob's Stealing from us, & he ran off with my chicken last week, & he stole your pig this week; we gotta do something." ... So they ... gathered together, they had a Trial, every-body that Tried Bob, Knew Bob. And so ... not only could they decide the Facts of what happened, they could decide his "Intent", to. ... Because he's been a Thief his whole life. Or, if they knew that he was an Honorable Man his whole life, "Maybe we ought to give this some more serious Inquiry.". WC: And you recognize ... and I happen to agree with you on that. ... Umm ... . You recognize that that whole Scheme has Changed. JW: Exactly. That's ... Now the Jury doesn't know the ... WC: ... In England. And Here. In fact your Prohibited from sitting on a Jury if you are related to the person, or your a Witness to the act, or you have Information ... JW: Correct. CS: Those Changes were Implemented at "the Point of a Sword", sir. That wasn't Voluntary "Consent" by the People. It was brought in through the "Norman Conquest"; and ... and "Early American Law", the Purpose of the Jury was to "Divine Natural Law". Uhh ... I don't know if I cited that ... I ... WC: I think you did. CS: Ok. Umm ... That was Prior to the "Civil War". At the "Civil War", there was a "Shift" happen. The Proliferation of "Bar Associations", and things like that, happened at that time. And ... & there's also portions that talk about "Jury Control Mechanisms" were instituted. This gets to the whole "Emergency War Powers" thing ... uhh ... that umm ... we touched upon in our last transcript. And my lengthy letter of the Outline I touched on, although I don't recall our last phone conversation mentioning it. Umm ... but ... That was a Point where that ... that Senate Report, 1973; talked about how ... umm ... these "Declarations of Emergency", specifically since the Civil War Altered our Constitution. The Constitution has basically been Suspended, our Rights & Liberties have been ... umm ... basically put on hold, on a back burner; because of these Emergencies that have never been repealed, since the Civil War; & especially since the early 1900's, where World War 1, & a little bit later when Mr Roosevelt came in & started dong some tinkering & things. Umm ... And so ... these are the ... the paramount concerns here. Did you have something Jeff? JW: Yea, well ... . I'm sorry. JB: Quick question here. Talking about Juries. Juries originally were to determine the "Facts" & the "Law". And I'd be curious as to where ... What was the purpose ... or what was the transition at which the Jury is to determine the "Facts", & the Judge to determine the "Law". WC: I don't recall. KG: I don't know either. I mean I understand your question. CS: It was the Civil War. It was brought in ... It was the Civil War ... JB: Well ok . I mean ... (garbled wording, from many) I have been given FIJA Material outside the Court House; & then a longer hand-out In the Court House, saying: "Don't pay any attention to them.". WC: Umm humm. JB: So I kind of find this a little curious. JW: Well, "the People" ... like we were saying "the People", ... the Power used to be with them. And it Flowed Upward. And that gets back to what we were discussing earlier ... as Mr Carson I believe said that "Law" ... where we were talking about these "County Courts" of "General Jurisdiction" ... "to be defined by Law" ... your position was that "Law" ... meant the "Legislature" ... WC: Correct. CS: ... And Mr Stewart said that "Law" means the "Common-Law". Now the People ... during Constitutional days ... here's the "Declaration of Independence" ... one of the Accusations against King George is: ... "He has combined with others to Subject us to a Jurisdiction Foreign to our Constitution, & unacknowledged by our Laws, giving his Assent to Their Acts of Pretended Legislation.". ... Here "Law" is used in contradiction to Legislation ... WC: Well ... It's talking about two continents, isn't it? JW: ... No! It was Over Here! The English came ... Common-Law came over with the English. WC: Well ... I understand that. JW: Ok. And then ... WC: The King didn't. JW: The King didn't, but ... but the Legislative Laws that were passed came over as well as the Common-Law. But they were saying that since they Contradicted the Common-Law, that these were "Pretended". They had No Authority. And that's one of the Reasons they Rose-Up & Threw-Off King George. And then they wrote the Declaration of ... or the Constitution ... and in it they said Article 3 Section 2, the "Judicial Power shall extend to All Cases in Law & Equity". Here "Law" is used in contradiction with "Equity". So when "Law" is used, they were generally referring to the "Common-Law". And ... from my historical reading ... that generally ... uhh ... goes with Mr Stewart's position. ... WC: Ok. CS: Umm ... Were not giving you much opportunity to respond here. But umm ... WC: Well, and I'm gong to have to ... run ... shortly ... so ... umm ... . And what I would suggest, ... I know it's inconvenient for you to come here. But if umm ... I either go back over your January letter, or maybe you ... jot some notes ... and I'll try to keep plugging away on these Issues ... that you raise ... . Now ... I'm Not so sure that I want to get into a "Political Science" Discussion. Or a ... umm ... . ... Well I'll just leave it at that. ... umm ... Were going from a Republic base, that we have here; & whether or not we ought to have a Legislature, or ... or as Town-Hall Meetings or whatever, I don't think will get any-where. That's what we have. And ... uhh ... so ... . Unless you want to ... . And I think the Legislature could (rally?) to find the support. ... CS: Can ... can I show you something in the ... WC: Sure ... You bet. CS: ... the larger "Administrative Justice" document here? Page 91. Umm ... It uhh ... Yea ... the ... umm ... Where it talks about "Coke"? WC: Umm humm. CS: From there on down ... it goes ... umm ... after the semi-colon, it says: "And then follows the famous sentence" ... and this is Quoting "Coke" ... "And it appears on our books that in many cases the Common-Law will Control Acts of Parliament, ... & some-times adjudge them to be utterly Void. For when an Act of Parliament is Against Common Right & Reason, or Repugnant or Impossible to Preform, the Common-Law will Control it, and Adjudge such Act to be Void." WC: Ok. CS: That was "Coke" talking. WC: Umm humm ... CS: That's ... that's part of our Constitutional Jurisprudence that's been brought in .. through the 9th & 10th Amendments. On a Federal level ... and ... WC: I ... One of the thing's I've learned in reading this .. I have to read the paragraph or two ahead of it ... and the paragraph behind it ... because ... I was just noticing when I was going over this ... . You take Some ... uhh ... Comfort ... . I don't ... I don't want to talk about that ... . I ... On one of your concerns, I ... . It's off the point ... the point that I ... I'll need to look a that again . Umm ... about "Administrative" ... it's in ... it's out of here, it uhh ... CS: Yea. WC: Well lets see one ... and your pretty good about not ... pretty good about quoting every-thing; when you quote it. But I'm trying to think ... add ... I noted that if you look at it one way ... it comes out. You read the full quote, & it ... get a different answer. ... CS: Ok. But ... Ju ... . Maybe briefly ... . The whole ... the Title of the Document it's-self here. It denotes that "Administrative Justice" is Different from "the Supremacy of Law". And ... WC: Well ... Well that's the point I was going to make. It Is, & it is a Different Context; ... If ... there's No Appeal to a "Law" Court. ... Right? CS: Right. Right. WC: And if there Is; ... Then It's OK . CS: Yea. ... Where's our Common-Law Courts? WC: ... Where do you ... I don't ... CS: Well ... . A "Court of Law". A "Court of Law"? WC: Uhh ... I don't think a "Common-Law Court" is a "Court of Law". CS: Uhh ... (quiet laughter from others as CS scrambles through workbook of citations.) JW: ... If you can identify differences ... then you can discuss them . WC: Your having the same trouble I'm having. (referencing trouble finding citations.) CS: "Court of Law". (pointing out citation finally found.) ... Umm. ... "In a narrower sense, a Court ... proceeding according to the Course of the Common-Law." ... That's in the "narrow" definition of the term. WC: Yea. That Doesn't Turn it into a "Common-Law Court"! CS: If they're following the "Course of the Common-Law", It's a "Common-Law Court" ! WC: Well, So ... . When we follow the "Course of the Common-Law", Were a "Common-Law Court". Because it does not say anything about who gets to head a "Common-Law Court". JW: That's True. It is possible ... WC: That's My Point. JW: It's Possible for Any "Court" to Act in a "Common-Law Capacity". WC: Sure. JW: I'll agree with that. CS: Ok, well technic ... . There is a technical point there. Because ... umm ... what happened after the Norman Conquest, is ... is ... & Magna Carta ... the King started Emulating the Anglo/Saxon Common-Law Process. And so ...he was kinda following ... the ... the Common-Law Process ... in the same manner that umm ... "Proceedings At Law". At that point there gets to be a technical distinction between Proceedings "At Law", & Proceedings "In Law"? And "the People's Common-Law Courts", would be considered Common-Law Courts "In Law", because their from "the People". Their exercising the Sovereignty directly. Where-as ... the Kings "Common-Law Courts" ... or the ... the Courts that are following the "Course of the Common-Law" through ... through the Authority of the Civil Government ... under ... like ... the old "Circuit Courts" used to be ... with the "Circuit Riders" & things ... . Those Courts were Courts "At Law". Courts "At Common-Law". Because technically ... they weren't the Sovereignty themselves. They Weren't "the People", "Self-Governing", like ... like the "County Courts" were suppose to do. Like especially they did back in Anglo/Saxon times. Umm ... They weren't exercising the Sovereignty themselves. They were ... they were ... they were ... uhh ... under the Civil "Master/Servant Relationship". They were "Public Servants". The Judges of the "Circuit Courts" ... were there-fore Proceeding "At Law", because technically the ... the tribunal that they sat over ... was Not a Direct Exercise of the Sovereignty. It was a ... a "Deputized" ... Exercise of the Sovereignty; through ... through the Agency that they'd had as a result of the Constitution, & the bringing in of the Civil Authorities ... umm ... over the State, or the Federalies ... or whatever it happened to be. WC: Ok. CS: So ... . But anyway ... umm ... WC: I'll take another look at that. CS: Yea. Yea. ... Uhh ... . I realize that were stretching ... probably ... our time ... WC: Yea ... any other comments ... from anybody else ... I thought maybe ... take notes, and ... (clear?) some thought, for another ... KG: I'm sorry ... If I could just ... real carefully ... . One of the things ... that I just ... in your January ... 31st letter, on the first date ... you talked about Cannon 3 pren 6 in the "Code of Judicial Conduct". CS: Right. KG: And I just wanted to let you know ... And I believe that it happened in 1995 ... the "Code of Judicial Conduct" was Changed. It's no longer the "Cannons", which are kind of a ... an "American Bar Association" creature ... umm ... but there ... we have different ... in Oregon now ... uhh ... "Code of Judicial Conduct". So ... "Cannon 3-6" is ... is a ... . It's an Anachronism from an the Oregon stand-point. So I wanted to provide you with that. JB: Where ... I'd like to know the Cite. (many talking at once.) KG: It would have been done ... there's also a case ... I believe there's a foot-note in a recent case, "in-ray - Gallager"?, ... JB: No ... . I just wanted to know the Statutory ... KG: Sure ... It might give you something ... WC: Well it's actually ... uhh ... yea ... . It's ... adopted by the Supreme Court. The "Disciplinary Rules" are adopted by the Board of Governors ... uhh ... originally ... the Board of Governors ... Disciplinary Rules for Lawyers ... are Board of Governors ... the House of Delegates, the Supreme Court ... & the ... uhh ... Judicial Rules ... what we call them now ... are adopted by the Supreme Court, ... who are Judges ... . JW: I think ... what a lot of people are concerned about is ... it comes down to our "Un-Alienable Rights". Their Suppose to be as old as the "Common-Law", & Part Of the "Common-Law". And if they come into ... it doesn't matter what Court. If they don't get "Common-Law Due-Process", & their Common-Law Rights are Not Recognized ... , & they have no access to it; then they've been disenfranchised, ... in some way . WC: Jeff, do you have a ... . Give me an example. JW: Ok. You brought up a good example, of the Twelve Person Jury. WC: Umm humm . JW: Ok. And that's Suppose to be "Unanimous". And this comes from Christ & the Disciples. And even older than that. There was Twelve Tribes of Israel. And every Tribe would get together ... WC: I think more comes from the latter than the former . But I wont argue ... with you. JW: What-ever. Holmes didn't think it came from Israel. But ... regardless ... the Origin ... can be debated ... the point is ... it took Twelve People, in Unanimous Verdict, to come to a Decision. And uhh ... there are People that are deeply upset over these things. Their saying ... you know ... "There was a Six Person Jury, Only Five of them said I was Guilty. I've been Robbed ! When did I loose that Right? And How can an "Un-Alienable Right" be "Alienated" from me? How can the Majority ... How can a Hundred People tell me I no longer have the Right that God him-self gave to me?" And I don't care if a Hundred People Steal, or Ten Million People Steal, it's Still "Stealing". Whether it be Property, ... & I believe Rights are Property. WC: Ok. JW: And these are the type of Concerns that People are having and are getting upset about. And were here discussing it verbally, because we see "Hope" (undecipherable) ... WC: I appreciate that. JW: But there is others out there ... I'm sure you know that ... every once in a while they make the news that ... that they've given up Hope, and they pick up arms ... and that's not a good thing. WC: Well I ... . Certainly Not. Not from the back-ground of ... the Bible, or ... JW: Right. And so ... WC: Although there are some things in the Old Testament ... that Suggest ... some, but ... New Testament ... JB: Yea. Comes it back to ... my original point I think earlier ... about the fact that umm ... "Due Process" seems to be Missing ... in "Circuit Courts" ... CS: Basically been Re-Defined, hasn't it ? JB: Well ehh ... your saying that ... uhh ... your saying that (garbled) everything in Portland is a "Circuit Court", now Right? WC: Yes. Well, that's a two-level answer. And that is that there are no District Courts. So that's "Circuit". JB: Right. And there are No "Municipal Courts". WC: And there is No "Municipal Court". JB: So that ... when-ever ... you go to the Court House ... your in a "Circuit" Court Room. WC: Yes. JB: Ok. And again. You know ... What is it, Article 7? Chuck? CS: Yea. JB: Ok. Anything. I sat in ... Room 120, I guess it was, & counted off the money. You know and ... . There's a lot of Revenue generated through ... by the ... per Hour ... Thousands of dollars per hour. And I really don't see any "Due Process" involved, at all. WC: Well, umm ... . Charles said you-know that: "Due Process" is "Defined". And it actually comes on it's ... How it's "Applied". Uhh ... I think we've ... I think I said ... could say it that way ... because your Idea of "Due Process", May Agree, or they May Not Agree. JB: Right WC: But there are "Touch-stones", when your working on "Due Process", that are In-Alienable ... Un-Alienable ... that we'd probably All Agree on . Now, I don't know what your thinking about ... in terms of ... "Lack of Due Process" in Traffic Court. I'm not Arguing with you ... JB: Well ... For example ... the Fines be ... a Thousand Dollars ... you-know, generally it's only in the Hundreds. However, it's far beyond the 21 Dollars for a Jury Trail. WC: Oh, I see. JB: Guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. WC: Oh, there's that again. (? unclear) JB: Why ... uhh ... Where did that go? JW: Sounds to me ... that's another Right the People have been disenfranchised from. JB: Exactly. It's like I ... I don't watch this ... but a friend of mine was telling me that they watch one of these uhh ... "Cop TV's". And a ... A guy pulled a ... or a Cop pulled a guy over ... & he shot him. I mean, the guy that was pulled over, Shot the Cop. National TV. Because ... I don't ... you-know ... there are ... . That's Not ... That's Not the Kind of "Law Enforcement" we need . Like Jeff was saying. ... People have Reached the Point ... A lot of People have reached the Point ... where ... they don't feel ... that ... the "Law" is to Protect them. It's basically ... for somebody else's advantage. And ... No- Body likes to have Police Shot. WC: No. I ... . Well; ... I'm sure there are some, ... but ... JB: Indeed. You-know ... uhh ... . And the problem is ... that in a ... . Cincinnati ... is a good example ... of ... the past used as an Excuse ... for Riot, & the like. ... I don't want that. JW: We don't want the People viewing ... that they don't have their Rights. We don't want the People viewing the Cop's ... as the "Enemy". But ... If they see the Cop's coming ... and they feel like their going to be drug into a System ... where their Not going to get "Justice" ... that's why we have the results were having. And ... there needs to be a "Remedy". WC: Ok. ... Well let me uhhh ... . If you give me a list of ... what other ... the next Subjects ... CS: Yea. Thank you. WC: ... I'll try to be (poor recording) . CS: We can keep lines of communication open? WC: You bet. CS: I appreciate that sir. JW: One more point. You said a ... about the Juries, that the U.S. Supreme Court has said it's Constitutional? WC: I think so. JW: Ok. If so ..., I'm not arguing Yea or Ney. But If they have, Just because they said it, doesn't make it Right. They also said that Dred Scott was "Chattel". CS: Yes. WC: No. I ... I ... No ... KG: But there is a "Supremacy Clause" in the U.S. Constitution. I think it's (garbled) in the Courts of all States ... (garbled) WC: No. I ... Your right. But ... . The Point I think that Jeff was making ... is that ... because it's in the Constitution, because it's in the "Law" doesn't necessarily mean it's "Right". So ... In you heart ... your Lord teaches you what is Right. ... Never-the-less, the Constitution is the "Law" & I have to deal with it. JW: Right. WC: That doesn't mean I like some of the stuff ... they pass ... or some of the other things ... but that's not the point ... but JW: But to keep the natives from Rioting ... so-to-say ... these things should be Remedied. WC: Well, and that's I hope ... and we talked about it last time ... with the Petition Process ... the Initiative Process ... that's one good thing we have in Oregon. If the Legislature Fails to Act ... for the reasons that Chuck mentioned ... or for Any reason ... or they just disagree ... the People have the Authority ... JW: And then another Court will come & throw it out. Cause they don't like it. JB: Again. ... WC: Well ... I will assure you ... as far as I'm concerned ... It's not whether we like it or don't like it. And I know your view is shared by others. JB: There is two examples of that. One is the one ... from the minutes of the last ... one of the last meetings ... is about the fact that the uhh ... they had ... an Initiative for the North/South Rail ... that was voted down a number of times ... and the Legislature turns it around ... and passes it as an "Emergency Measure", & passes an "Emergency Funding Measure". And I think at that ... you had said prior to that ... that uhh ... the "Emergency Measure" ... did not deal with Patents. And then there was a Third one with the "Prisons". Who can then ... you know ... . Prisons can uhh ... Raise "Bond Issues". WC: Well ... But the Fact Remains that the "Emergency Clause" by the Constitution ... can't be added to the Bill ... that uhh ... as a "Remedy". JB: Well then, ... what has happened to the Funding that was passed? The "Light Rail" Funding that was passed? WC: I don't know ... the North/South Rail. Where is that? JN: North Portland. WC: Is it? JB: It's working on ... in Portland now ... You bet. WC: Well I know there's the one ... JB: They've got one in Clark County. WC: Well ok. I know the one (near?) the Airport. That's all, & that's Done . JW: Right. WC: But that's not the North/South? JB: No. This is the one going across the River. JW: To Vancouver. WC: Oh, Really? JB: Yes. JN: But it's not getting there yet. WC: Clark County has never Voted for it, Have they? JN: No. It's not getting to Vancouver yet. JW: Well even when the People Vote "No", ... they find some reason to ... (laughter) JB: They pass it under the "Emergency" Rule. WC: Well ... the "Emergency Clause" is ... uhh ... in my view ... merely to ... uhh ... generally not have to wait till 90 days, "Sine Die"; ... uhh ... before goes in ... JB: Well ... that's not the way ... JW: ... the Public Views "Emergencies". We view "Emergencies", like there's Riotings in the Streets, & we have to do something Now ! They ... JB: Or the River is Rising over the Bank. CS: And further ... the technical wording of the Clause ... says differently than that. The technical wording of the Clause says it is "Immediately Necessary for the Peace, Safety, & Happiness ... of the People.". It doesn't say anything about just doing it for Time. It says that the "Peace, & Safety, & Happiness" ... "& Happiness", All Three of those, Are In "Danger" ... unless we interact this "Emergency" Statute. WC: Well ... you can ponder one ... because ... our budget for the Courts ... would go to (the Governor?) ... if it were closer to "Sine Die", it would have an "Emergency Clause" on it. It wouldn't have to wait until 90 days after they go, ... or we would not have a Court (System?) ... in Oregon ... during that period of time . CS: Some of us view that as being beneficial. (laughter) ... Well ... You ask the 10,000 People that are in Prison presently ... you know ... if ... if the doors would spring open ... uhh ... And I know there's some nasty people in there ... some murders ... but a man's suppose to be "Innocent until Proven Guilty" ... WC: Umm humm. CS: And that is suppose to happen by "Due Process of Law". WC: Umm humm . WC: Well ... It's Not Happening . WC: Well ... in the Cases I see ... I would ... disagree with you ... . Can "Errors" be made? Sure. CS: Well ... This ... this whole thing where ... these "Jury Control Mechanisms" ...? Where ... where the "Rules of Evidence" ... you know ... the "Jury" ... in olden times ... prior to ... the Civil War ... and ... . I guess were getting into your time again, I'm sorry, but ... WC: Yea ... CS: Maybe well Abort. (laughter) Well save it for next time? WC: Yea. Let's have a Next Time. Thank you Charles, I ... appreciate it. Always good to see you here. CS: Thank you. WC: Jeff. Thank you very much. JW: Good meeting you. ... What was your last name, Keith? KG: "Garza." G-A-R-Z-A. JW: I appreciate you seeking cases of that "General" Nature. And that was ... KG: Oh ... sure ... well ... I'm happy to do what I can. And I'm glad to have eliminated the ... of my abilities ... be ... because of the Nature of my Employment ... . But stuff like uhh ... if I can correct the ... you know ... a mis- impression here or there ... I'm happy to try to do it ... and uhh ... JW: Well that's what ... KG: ... and acknowledge that here are "Over Arching Questions" here that ... uhh ... that I simply, ... & I think frankly the Chief as well ... is not able to answer. That doesn't mean their not Valid. (end of tape) Transcribed by Charles Bruce, Stewart. Phone # is: 503-668-3932, &/or EMail at: