I am not this hair or this skin, I'm the soul that lives within...
India Arie


The Cur­rent Year is 6274

The feel­ing is strong and it over­pow­ers my thoughts, I am not aware of the real­ity that my blood knows only to well!
My mind is hos­tile for the wrong rea­sons, I am only sun and man, but the need to be brother is tremendous!

Quo-​Warranto/​State-​Ex-​Rel Crim­i­nal Complaints

Memorandum/​Article in Sup­port of

The Com­mon Amer­i­can Peo­ple Directly Prosecuting

Quo-​Warranto/​State-​Ex-​Rel Crim­i­nal Com­plaints;

in any State or Fed­eral Court in the Union.

A study of the Impli­ca­tions of Ore­gon Revised Statutes (ORS) 30.51030.640.

As Com­posed by “Charles Bruce, Stew­art” of Sandy Oregon.

Ver­sion 2.1; Last Edited: May-​2007.

Indi­vid­u­als” may Bring Com­plaints “In The Name Of & On Behalf Of the State”.

Prob­a­bly All of the Leg­isla­tive Assem­blies of our Amer­i­can States have enacted var­i­ous “State-​Ex-​Rel Statutes” so-​as-​to Pre­serve the Constitutionally-​Secured Rights of “We the Peo­ple” to invoke the old Eng­lish “Quo-​Warranto” Judi­cial Process. Here-​under; when Any Indi­vid­ual Files a “Quo-​Warranto Criminal-​Complaint”, where-​in he or she Solemnly Affirms that a “Crime” has been com­mit­ted against him or her as an Indi­vid­ual, then directly here-​by that Individual’s “Mem­ber­ship” in that Con­sti­tu­tional “State” is there-​by invoked; and fur­ther here-​by, he or she is Law­fully Empow­ered to Claim that the same “Crime” which was com­mit­ted against him or her, has Also been Com­mit­ted Against “The State”.

This is a “Process” which is “Due” to each and every rep­utable Indi­vid­ual in this State, because of each such Individual’s “Rela­tion”, as a Socially-​Compacted Component-​Members of their larger organic Body-​Politics, each of which is known as “The State”. The term “Rel”, at the end of the above-​quoted phrase “State-​Ex-​Rel”; specif­i­cally Sig­ni­fies this “Rela­tion” of this Indi­vid­ual (through Social-​Compact) with the remain­ing mem­bers of “We the Peo­ple” in Our Con­sti­tu­tional “State”.

Here-​under, when-​ever “Any Per­son” is solemnly accused by any rep­utable mem­ber of the com­mu­nity of Abus­ing “Any Public-​Office or Fran­chise” in such a “State”, such “Per­son” is Law­fully Required to Respond to the Mer­its of the Com­plaint against him or her in the Courts of that State. Any Quo-​Warranto/​State-​Ex-​Rel; Com­plaint in accom­pa­ni­ment here-​to, has the Law­fully Author­ity to invoke this pre­cise process. In efforts to gain a clear com­pre­hen­sion of this unique legal process, a very insight­ful case-​precedent to study, from the Ore­gon Supreme Court, is the following:

State Ex Rel Mad­den V. Craw­ford (207 Or Mar. 56) (1956) 295 P.2d 174

This is an orig­i­nal pro­ceed­ing by Quo War­ranto (Ore­gon Con­sti­tu­tion, Art 7 ss 2; ORS 30.510) chal­leng­ing the right of the defen­dant James W. Craw­ford, a duly elected, qual­i­fied, and act­ing cir­cuit judge of the state of Ore­gon for the fourth judi­cial dis­trict, to sit tem­porar­ily as a mem­ber of the Supreme Court of Oregon … . …

“… The ques­tion is an impor­tant and del­i­cate one, because the deci­sion will directly affect the prob­lem of this court which gave rise to the enact­ment of the leg­is­la­tion involved. We can­not, how­ever, take into account con­sid­er­a­tions of expe­di­ency in mak­ing our deci­sion; our sole duty is to deter­mine whether the statute squares with the Con­sti­tu­tion and ren­der judge­ment accord­ingly. ORS 30.510, in part provides: …

This enact­ment is the statu­tory equiv­a­lent of the common-​law writ of quo war­ranto, and an action com­menced under it is gen­er­ally referred to as a pro­ceed­ing in quo war­ranto. … It is the rem­edy or pro­ceed­ing by which is deter­mined the legal­ity of a claim which a party asserts to the use or exer­cise of an office or fran­chise and ousts the holder from its enjoy­ment, if the claim is not well founded. 44 Am Jur 94, Quo War­ranto ss 8; 44 Am Jur 100, Quo War­ranto ss 22. In 74 CJS 197, Quo War­ranto ss 4, the rule is stated thus:

‘In the absence of con­sti­tu­tional or statu­tory reg­u­la­tions pro­vid­ing oth­er­wise, quo war­ranto pro­ceed­ings are the only proper rem­edy in cases in which they are avail­able. Thus quo war­ranto, or a pro­ceed­ing in the nature thereof, is the sole and exclu­sive rem­edy and method by which var­i­ous mat­ters may be tried and deter­mined, as for exam­ple, the right and title to office, … .’ * * *

Hav­ing been appointed to sit as a mem­ber of this court pur­suant to the pro­vi­sions of ORS 2.060, defen­dant has become a defacto judge thereof; he acts under color of author­ity. Acts per­formed by him in that capac­ity are not invalid. A judge defacto is, to all intents and pur­poses, a judge dejure as to all per­sons except the state, and con­tin­ues as such until he is prop­erly ousted from office. He is not a usurper. His acts or his right to act, as a defacto judge, can­not be col­lat­er­ally attacked. His title or right to the office can be deter­mined only in quo war­ranto pro­ceed­ings, brought by or in the name of the state. Here the attack is direct by quo war­ranto, and the ques­tion of the right of the defen­dant to sit as a mem­ber of this court is squarely pre­sented. The color of author­ity (ORS 2.060) under which defen­dant assumes to act being uncon­sti­tu­tional and void, defen­dant is not enti­tled to occupy the posi­tion to which he was appointed by the Supreme Court.”

Please note that the “ORS 30.510″ Statute referred to there-​in, is the “Statu­tory Equiv­a­lent of Quo War­ranto”. This “State-​Ex-​Re” Statute Invokes the “Quo-​Warranto” Process. The Ore­gon Statute reads as follows:

ORS: 30.510: (Action for usurpa­tion of office or franchise.)

An action at law may be main­tained in the name of the state, upon the infor­ma­tion of the dis­trict attor­ney, or upon the rela­tion of a pri­vate party against the per­son offend­ing, in the fol­low­ing cases:

(1) When any per­son usurps, intrudes into, or unlaw­fully holds or exer­cises any pub­lic office, civil or mil­i­tary, or any fran­chise within this state, or any office in a cor­po­ra­tion either pub­lic or pri­vate, cre­ated or formed by or under the author­ity of this state; or,

(2) When any pub­lic offi­cer, civil or mil­i­tary, does or suf­fers an act which, by the pro­vi­sions of law, makes a for­fei­ture of the office of the pub­lic offi­cer; or,

(3) When any asso­ci­a­tion or num­ber of per­sons acts within this state, as a cor­po­ra­tion, with­out being duly incor­po­rated.

As shown in this above case; the Ore­gon Statute clearly pro­vides for the Com­mon Peo­ple of the State to pro­ceed in this “State-​Ex-​Rel/​Quo-​Warranto” man­ner. The “Mad­den” case-​precedent pre­sented above here, clearly equates the two terms “State-​Ex-​Rel”, & “Quo-​Warranto”. And fur­ther; it also clearly allows for “”Pri­vate Par­ties”, such as the Co-​Plaintiffs spec­i­fied in the accom­pa­ny­ing com­plaint; to “Main­tain” this kind of an “Action …”, by pro­ceed­ing “In the Name of the State”. The Statute Clearly Declares that these “Pri­vate Par­ties” can pro­ceed “In the Name of the State”. That is Clearly what this Statute says. And the sim­i­lar Statutes of many other States, such as “the State of Wash­ing­ton”, read with sim­i­larly sig­nif­i­cant power de-​centralized wording.

Here-​under, it becomes very clear, as-​to “Why” it is Nec­es­sary for any such per­son to Pro­ceed “in the Name of” and “On the Behalf of” the “State”. This is true, because “the State” is the “Term Used” in our writ­ten Con­sti­tu­tional Social-​Compact, where-​under are pri­mar­ily rec­og­niz­able the spe­cific “Duties” are Spec­i­fied for such “Public-​Servants”, as “Judges”, “Dis­trict Attor­neys”, & “Attorneys-​General”. To com­pre­hend this Quo-​Warranto/​State-​Ex-​Rel dynamic even more clearly, it is very wise to attempt to spend a few moments in assem­bling a very clear & pre­cise def­i­n­i­tion of the critically-​important term “State”, as follows:

State, gov­ern­ment. … This word … (i)n its most enlarged sense, it sig­ni­fies a self-​sufficient body of per­sons united together in one com­mu­nity for the defence of their rights, and to do right and jus­tice to for­eign­ers. In this sense, the state means the whole peo­ple united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the peo­ple of the state, are equiv­a­lent expres­sions. …”

Law Dic­tio­nary; by John Bou­vier; 1856

All fol­low­ing dark-​lettered cita­tions on “State” are from Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary 5th Edi­tion, 1979:

State: A peo­ple per­ma­nently occu­py­ing a fixed ter­ri­tory bound together by common-​law habits and cus­tom into one body politic, exer­cis­ing, through the medium of an orga­nized gov­ern­ment, inde­pen­dent sov­er­eignty and con­trol over all per­sons and things within its bound­aries, capa­ble of mak­ing war and peace and of enter­ing into inter­na­tional rela­tions with other com­mu­ni­ties of the globe. … The orga­ni­za­tion of social life which exer­cises sov­er­eign power on behalf of the peo­ple. … In its largest sense, “stateis a body politic or a soci­ety of men. A body of peo­ple occu­py­ing a def­i­nite ter­ri­tory and polit­i­cally orga­nized under one gov­ern­ment. State ex rel. Maisano v. Mitchell, 155 Conn. 256, 231 A.2d 539, 542. A ter­ri­to­r­ial unit with a dis­tinct gen­eral body of law. … Term may refer to a body politic of a nation (e.g. United States) or to an indi­vid­ual gov­ern­men­tal unit of such nation (e.g. California). …

The peo­ple of a state, in their col­lec­tive capac­ity, con­sid­ered as the party wronged by a crim­i­nal deed, the pub­lic, as in the title of a cause, “The State vs A.B.”

Ex Rel & Ex Rela­tione: Upon rela­tion or infor­ma­tion. Legal pro­ceed­ings which are insti­tuted by the attor­ney gen­eral (or other proper per­son) in the name and behalf of the state, but on the infor­ma­tion and at the insti­ga­tion of an indi­vid­ual who has a pri­vate inter­est in the mat­ter, are said to be “on the rela­tion” (ex rela­tione) of such per­son, who is usu­ally called the “real­tor”. Such a cause is usu­ally enti­tled thus: “State ex erl. Doe v Roe.”

Quo War­ranto: /​kwow wera’entow/. In old Eng­lish prac­tice, a writ in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, fran­chise, or lib­erty, to inquire by what author­ity he sup­ported his claim, in order to deter­mine the right. It lay also in case of non-​user, or long neglect of a fran­chise, or mis­user or abuse of it; being a writ com­mand­ing the defen­dant to show by what war­rant he exer­cises such a fran­chise, hav­ing never had any grant of it, or hav­ing for­feited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl.Comm. 262.

An extra­or­di­nary pro­ceed­ing, pre­rog­a­tive in nature, addressed to pre­vent­ing a con­tin­ued exer­cise of author­ity unlaw­fully asserted. John­son v. Man­hat­tan Ry. Co., N.Y., 289 U.S. 479, 53 S.Ct. 721, 77 L.Ed. 1331. It is intended to pre­vent exer­cise of pow­ers that are not con­ferred by law, and is not ordi­nar­ily avail­able to reg­u­late the man­ner of exer­cis­ing such powers.

The rem­edy of “quo war­ranto” belongs to the state, in it’s sov­er­eign capac­ity, to pro­tect the inter­ests of the peo­ple as a whole and guard the pub­lic wel­fare, and it is a pre­ven­ta­tive rem­edy addressed to pre­vent­ing a con­tin­ued exer­cise of an author­ity unlaw­fully asserted, rather than cor­rect­ing what has already been done under that author­ity. Cit­i­zens Util­i­ties Co. of Cal. V. Supe­rior Court, Alameda County, 56 Cal. App.3d 399, 128 Cal.Rptr. 582, 588. “Quo war­ranto” is legal action whereby legal­ity of exer­cise of pow­ers by munic­i­pal cor­po­ra­tion may be placed in issue. Peo­ple ex rel. City of Des Plaines v. Vil­lage of Mount Prospect, 29 Ill.App.3rd 807, 331 N.E.2d 337, 377.

The fed­eral rules are applic­a­ble to pro­ceed­ings for quo war­ranto “to the extent that the prac­tice in such pro­ceed­ings is not set forth in statutes of the United States and has hereto­fore con­formed to the prac­tice in civil actions.” Fed.R. Civil P. 81 (a)(2). Any rem­edy that could have been obtained under the his­toric writ of quo war­ranto may be obtained by a civil action of that nature. U.S. v. Nuss­baum, D.C.Cal., 306 F.Supp. 66.”

Sum­ma­riz­ing from the first of the above; “State … sig­ni­fies a self-​sufficient body of per­sons united together … for the defence of their rights, … state, and the peo­ple of the state, are equiv­a­lent expres­sions”. Also: “A peo­plebound together by common-​law habits and cus­tom into one body politic, exer­cis­ing, … con­trol over all per­sons and things within its bound­ariescon­sid­ered as the party wronged by a crim­i­nal deed …” Please note that the term “Body-​Politic” is used Three Times in of the above cita­tions. Here-​under, it is good to cite the related-​term “Con­sti­tu­tion”, as follows:

Con­sti­tu­tion: The organic and fun­da­men­tal law of a nation or state, which may be writ­ten or un-​written, estab­lish­ing the char­ac­ter and con­cep­tion of it’s gov­ern­ment, lay­ing the basic prin­ci­ples to which its inter­nal life is to be con­formed, orga­niz­ing the gov­ern­ment, and reg­u­lat­ing, dis­trib­ut­ing, and lim­it­ing the func­tions of the dif­fer­ent depart­ments, and pre­scrib­ing the extent and man­ner of the exer­cise of sov­er­eign pow­ers.

A char­ter of gov­ern­ment deriv­ing its whole author­ity from the gov­erned. The writ­ten instru­ment agreed upon by the peo­ple of the Union or of a par­tic­u­lar state, as the absolute rule of action and deci­sion for all depart­ments and offi­cers of the gov­ern­ment in respect to points cov­ered by it, which must con­trol until it shall be changed by the author­ity which estab­lished it, and in oppo­si­tion to which any act or ordi­nance of any such depart­ment or offi­cer is null and void. In a more gen­eral sense, any fun­da­men­tal or impor­tant law or edict … .”

Con­sti­tu­tional Law. (1) That branch of the pub­lic law of a nation or state which treats of the orga­ni­za­tion, pow­ers and frame of gov­ern­ment, the dis­tri­b­u­tion of polit­i­cal and gov­ern­men­tal author­i­ties and func­tions, the fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ples which are to reg­u­late the rela­tions of gov­ern­ment and cit­i­zen, and which pre­scribes gen­er­ally the plan and method accord­ing to which the pub­lic affairs of the nation or state are to be admin­is­tered.

(2) That depart­ment of the sci­ence of law which treats of con­sti­tu­tions, their estab­lish­ment, con­struc­tion, and inter­pre­ta­tion, and of the valid­ity of legal enact­ments as tested by the cri­te­rion of con­for­mity to the fun­da­men­tal law.” Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary 5th Edtn, 1979, West Pub. Co.

From the above def­i­n­i­tions, may be derived the two other terms of “Body-​Politic” & “Organic-​Law”. These two terms clearly relate to an “Organic Body” with Indi­vid­ual Peo­ple form­ing its Many Soci­o­log­i­cal Component-​Parts. This term “Body-​Politic” is specif­i­cally meant to denote a Group of Peo­ple mov­ing together for their Mutual Pro­tec­tion & Ben­e­fit. This is all anal­o­gous to a “flock of birds” or “school of fish”; act­ing toghether, in con­cert, organ­i­cally & har­mo­niously. These are tangible/​real enti­ties, with solidly-​physical component-​parts. Each of these enti­ties are log­i­cally rec­og­niz­able as Voluntarily-​Forming Their Own sep­a­rate phys­i­cal, col­lec­tive, Organic-​Community. A Com­mu­nity of Peo­ple such as this is a “Con­sti­tu­tional Body-​Politic”, specif­i­cally & only because it is an “Organic Body-​Politic”. The terms “Organic” & “Con­sti­tu­tionalbeing clearly “Equiv­a­lent”; just as the terms “State” & “Peo­ple” are “Equiv­a­lent”; all as shown in the above quotations.

Also as above quoted; Each Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tional “Body-​Politichas been Organ­i­cally Drawn-​Together for the Sin­gu­lar Pur­pose ofthe Defence of Their Rights, & to do right & jus­tice to for­eign­ers”. This is the Sin­gu­lar Pur­pose for the For­ma­tion of the Organic (both Un-​Written & Writ­ten) Con­sti­tu­tional Social-​Compacts. This is true at the Fed­eral, State, & All Lower Lev­els of Gov­ern­ment. This is Clear from the Pri­or­i­tized Posi­tion of the term “Jus­tice” in the very “Pre­am­bles” of Both the Fed­eral & State Writ­ten “Con­sti­tu­tion” Documents.

Under these “Social-​Compacts”, the Constitutionally-​Recognizable “Rights of the Peo­ple” are the “Top Pri­or­ity”. These “Rights of the Peo­ple” are set forth with-​in the Con­sti­tu­tional “Social-​Compact” are to be secured by the Law­ful “State”. To fur­ther sup­port these con­clu­sions, it is good to look to the def­i­n­i­tions of the term “Right”, which are com­monly ren­dered as follows:

Right: As a Noun, and taken in the abstract sense, means jus­tice, eth­i­cal cor­rect­ness, or con­so­nance with the rules of law or the prin­ci­ples of morals. In this sig­ni­fi­ca­tion it answers to one mean­ing of the Latin “jus”, and serves to indi­cate law in the abstract, con­sid­ered as the foun­da­tion of all rights, or the com­plex of under­ly­ing moral prin­ci­ples which impart the char­ac­ter of jus­tice to all pos­i­tive law, or give it eth­i­cal con­tent. … And the pri­mal rights per­tain­ing to men … exist­ing prior to pos­i­tive law. But leav­ing the abstract moral sphere and giv­ing to the term a juris­tic con­tent, a “right” is well defined as “a capac­ity resid­ing in one man of con­trol­ling, with the assent & assis­tance of the state, the actions of oth­ers.” As an adjec­tive, the term “right” means just, morally cor­rect, con­stant with eth­i­cal prin­ci­ples or rules of pos­i­tive law. It is the oppo­site of wrong, unjust, ille­gal. … A legally enforce­able claim of one per­son against another, that the other shall do a given act or not do a given act. That which one per­son ought to have or receive from another, it being with held from him, or not in his pos­ses­sion. In this sense, “right” has the force of “claim”, and is prop­erly expressed by the Latin “jus”. … Nat­ural rights are those which grow out of the nature of man and depend upon per­son­al­ity, as dis­tin­guished from such as are cre­ated by law and depend upon civ­i­lized soci­ety; … they are those which are plainly assured by nat­ural law; … those which, by fair deduc­tion from the present phys­i­cal, moral, social, and reli­gious char­ac­ter­is­tics of man, he must be invested with, and which he ought to have real­ized for him in a jural soci­ety, in order to ful­fill the ends to which his nature calls him. (Blacks Law Dic­tio­nary, 5th Edition)

Jurispru­dence is specif­i­cally con­cerned only with such rights as are rec­og­nized by law and enforced by the power of the state. We may there­fore define alegal right” in what we shall here­after see is the strictest sense of that term, as a capac­ity resid­ing in one man of con­trol­ling, with the assent and assis­tance of the state, the actions of oth­ers. That which gives valid­ity to a legal right is, in every case, the force which is lent to it by the state. Any­thing else may be the occa­sion, but not the cause of its oblig­a­tory char­ac­ter.” (William Casey Jones, Direc­tor of the School of Jurispru­dence, Uni­ver­sity of Cal­i­for­nia. Pg 121/​199, Sec­tion 160; Foot­notes; “Com­men­taries on the Laws of Eng­land”, by William Black­stone; Ban­croft Whitney)

In all of these author­i­ta­tive sources, we find that Anglo-​American Jurispru­dence con­sid­ers the term “Stateto invoke a Socially-​Compacted Rela­tion­ship where-​under spe­cific Indi­vid­ual Mem­bers who Solemnly Affirm that they have Suf­fered a Crime, are Guar­an­teed the Right to “Con­trol … Oth­ers” … by way of their “Rela­tion­ship” with the “State”, until that Accu­sa­tion has been Fully Resolved. Here-​under, Logic Dic­tates that they will not be able to “Con­trol” those “Oth­ers”, Unless they can also Con­trol the “Public-​Servants” of the “State”.

When a Mem­ber of the “Social-​Compact” is Directly & Phys­i­cally Injured by a Crim­i­nal Act, it is an Injury To Every-​Other Mem­ber of that Socially-​Compacted Com­mu­nity. It is a “Breach of the Peace”, a “Tres­pass”, a “Common-​Law Crime” of “Malum in Se”, aka: “a Wrong in It’s-Self”. All Mem­bers are Bound-​Toghether under the Terms of this “Social-​Compact” to Defend the Rights of Each-​Other against all such Phys­i­cal Crimes. It is like bang­ing your thumb with a ham­mer. When one mem­ber of the body suf­fers pain, all other true mem­bers of that same body sym­pa­thet­i­cally feel that same pain. These are Natural/​Organic “Laws”, & they are the Same for All Organic “Bodies-​Politic”, & they are the Same for All “Con­sti­tu­tional States”. This is Why the above cita­tions indi­cate that “Organic Law” is the same as “Constitutional-​Law”.

These Phys­i­cal “Injuries” to Indi­vid­ual Mem­bers of Body-​Politic are rec­og­niz­able as “Common-​Law Crimes”, & they have all been com­monly referred to in Amer­i­can Jurispru­dence as “Pub­lic Crimes”. Such “Pub­lic Crimes” are all Opposed To the “Pri­vate Crimes”, which are also decep­tively termed as “Quasi-​Crimes”. These “Pri­vate Crimes” find their Source in the “Malum-​Prohibitum” based Statu­tory Dic­tates of Majority-​Rule “Leg­isla­tive Bod­ies”, which in one form or another have (at least tem­porar­ily) come under the con­trol­ling influ­ence of some form of a Pri­vate “Spe­cial Inter­est” Group or Per­son.

Here-​under, when it comes time to En-​Force these Constitutionally-​Lawless Malum-​Prohibitum Based Statutes, the Pubic-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors & Judges Rou­tinely, Know­ingly, & Pur­pose­fully Pros­e­cute Mul­ti­tudes of Hon­or­able Peo­ple, all by Tak­ing “Silent Judi­cial Notice” that such Hon­or­able Peo­ple have some-​how “Con­tracted” or other-​wise some-​how estab­lished “Min­i­mal Con­tacts” & a “Legal Nexus” with some form of a “Private-​Law Juris­dic­tion”. In order for such “Private-​Law” to be En-​Forced in the Pub­lic Courts of the State, some form of “Legal Nexus” as this must be found, where-​under “Minimal-​Contacts” between the Tar­geted “Vic­tim” & the “Private-​Law Juris­dic­tion” are estab­lished. This is usu­ally accom­plished though a “Pre­sump­tion” that some form of “Com­mer­cial Con­tract” exists between the unwit­ting Accused and his Accuser. A few Def­i­n­i­tions would be good here, as follows:

Pri­vate Law: As used in con­tradis­tinc­tion to “Pub­lic Law”, the term means all that part of the law which is admin­is­tered between cit­i­zen and cit­i­zen, or which is con­cerned with the def­i­n­i­tion, reg­u­la­tion, and enforce­ment of rights in cases where both the per­son in whom the right inheres and the per­son in whom the oblig­a­tion is inci­dent are pri­vate indi­vid­u­als. See: also: Pri­vate bill; Pub­lic law; Spe­cial law.” Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary 5th Edtn, 1979.

When-​ever these Public-​Servant Judges & Pros­e­cu­tors are pressed for the Rea­son “Why” they have Dis-​Regarded the Con­sti­tu­tion­ally Secured “Rights” of an Honorable-​American/​Victim in ques­tion; they will, begrudg­ingly plead that the “Accuser Sets the Forum”; & that under the Terms of the Accuser’s Com­plaint “Pri­vate Law” was being En-​Forced, because of some or another form of “Legal-​Nexus” (aka: “Min­i­mal Con­tacts”) which the Vic­tim had estab­lished with the Private-​Jurisdiction which was seek­ing to En-​Force Obe­di­ence to its Pri­vate Claim. These Judges will then Finally Declare that the Constitutional-​Rights of the Accused can Only be Secured in such cases through a “Counter-​Complaint”, where-​under the “At Law” Juris­dic­tion of the Court is invoked. This idea is rou­tinely but super­fi­cially com­mu­ni­cated to first-​year law-​school stu­dents in such case-​law prece­dents as follows:

“the Court of Appeals held it was not an abuse of dis­cre­tion for the dis­trict judge, … to try the equi­table cause first even though this might, through col­lat­eral estop­pel, pre­vent a full jury trial of the coun­ter­claim and cross-​claim which were as effec­tively stopped as by an equity injunc­tion. … the use of dis­cre­tion by the trial court under Rule 42(b) to deprive Bea­con of a full jury trial on its coun­ter­claim and cross-​claim, as well as on Fox’s plea for declara­tory relief, can­not be jus­ti­fied. … Thus any defenses, equi­table or legal, Fox may have to charges of antitrust vio­la­tions can be raisedin answer to Beacon’s coun­ter­claim. … By con­trast, the hold­ing of the court below … would com­pel Bea­con to split his antitrust case, try­ing part to a judge & part to a jury. Such … is not permissible.

Our deci­sion is con­sis­tent with the planto effect sub­stan­tial pro­ce­dural reform while retain­ing a dis­tinc­tion between jury and non­jury issues and leav­ing sub­stan­tive rights unchanged. Since in the fed­eral courts equity has always acted only when legal reme­dies were inad­e­quate, the expan­sion of ade­quate legal reme­diesnec­es­sar­ily affects the scope of equity. … This is not only in accord with the spirit of the Rules and the Act but is required by the pro­vi­sion in the Rules that ‘(t)he right of trial by jury as declared by the Sev­enth Amend­ment to the Con­sti­tu­tionshall be pre­served * * * invi­o­late.’

Since the right to jury trial is a con­sti­tu­tional one, how­ever, while no sim­i­lar require­ment pro­tects tri­als by the court, that dis­cre­tion is very nar­rowly lim­ited and must, wher­ever pos­si­ble, be exer­cised to pre­serve jury trial. … ‘In the Fed­eral courts this (jury) right can­not be dis­pensed withnor can it be impaired by any blend­ing with a claim, prop­erly cog­niz­able at law, of a demand for equi­table relief … .” Bea­con The­atres, V. West­over, US Supreme Court (1959); 359 U.S. 500, 79 S,Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed. 988.

So, to be fair; there is a “Legal Mech­a­nism” in place which can the­o­ret­i­cally Abort the “Private-​Laws” the Summary/​Military EnForce­ment Process of the so-​called “Equity” Juris­dic­tion. The­o­ret­i­cally here-​under; Con­sti­tu­tional “Due Process of Law” is ade­quately Secured for the Accused.

But in prac­tice, & as a prac­ti­cal mat­ter; Almost All of the Lower Trail-​Level Courts Refuse to Fol­low this very good Prece­dent, merely coldly telling the vic­tim that if he does not like the deci­sion, to “Appeal”. And the few vic­tims with the knowl­edge, money, & energy to com­plete the “Appeal”, are quite Likely to be Refused the Jus­tice which they deserve at that “Appel­late” Level also; at least if their case is any­thing which has any sig­nif­i­cant impli­ca­tions at all for “Set­ting a Prece­dent” which might Inter­fere with the Rou­tine Abuses of the “Pri­vate Juris­dic­tion” which such Judges seem so habit­u­ally Prej­u­dice towards .

And so, this is where the “Mas­sive Fraud” against “We the Peo­ple” who col­lec­tively com­pose this State’s Organic Body-​Politic occurs. Here-​under; the Public-​Servant Judges & Pros­e­cu­tors of these Courts Must “Pre­tend” to Be “Not Aware” that the Aver­age Hon­or­able Amer­i­can has Absolutely “No Idea” that “Pri­vate Laws” of some form of “Pri­vate Juris­dic­tion” are being EnForced Against Him thought the so-​called “Equity” Sum­mary Court-​room Process. These Judges Must Pre­tend that the Vic­tim is Not being Un-​Fairly & Un-​Justifiably being Rail-​Roaded into a “Private-​Law” Juris­dic­tion. They Must Pre­tend to be “Igno­rant of the Law”, in it’s Organic/​Constitutional Sense; con­cern­ing the Natural/​Organic Mean­ing of such sim­ple terms as “Jus­tice”, “Fun­da­men­tal Fair­ness”, & “Due Process of Law”. At Every Stage of this Summary/​Military Process, they Must Pre­tend to be under the Good-​Faith Delu­sion that This Non-​Organic & Non-​Constitutional “Code of Human Con­duct” is “Law­ful” to Apply against the Un-​Suspecting Component-​Members of the Body-​Politic of “We the Peo­ple”; i.e. “the State”.

Here-​under; an “Illu­sion” Must be Main­tained, so that the Pre-​Judicial “Prej­u­dice” of these Cor­rupted “Public-​Servant” Judges & Pros­e­cu­tors can Rou­tinely be Sup­ported & Advanced through “Plau­si­ble Denial”. Here-​under; they Must “Con­struct” a Set of “Arti­fi­cial Rules” so that the “Illu­sion” of “Impar­tial­ity” may be Main­tained; & so that Charges of “Arbi­trary” & “Prej­u­di­cial” EnForce­ment against Un-​Suspecting Peo­ple can be “Plau­si­bly Denied”. Here-​under; a “Fic­tion of Law” Must be Cre­ated & Main­tained. This is the Sole-​Purpose of the above-​referenced “Private-​Law”.

Under this “Fic­tion of Law” & “Pri­vate Law”; Judges can Declare with a straight-​face that the Accused had No “Constitutionally-​Secured Rights”, because he had “Con­tracted Them Away”. When pressed for Rea­son “Why” the Accused was Never Told of this “Con­tract” being En-​Forced Against Him; these Judges will declare again with straight faces that such would amount to “Pri­vate Sup­port” of the Vic­tim, & that it is Not Among Their “Duties” to be “Assis­tance of Coun­sel” for the Com­mon Amer­i­can Peo­ple. This “Private-​Law Juris­dic­tion” is all remark­ably Sim­i­lar in its Essen­tial Nature to the “Babylonian-​Whore” of Rev­e­la­tion 17 & 18. It relies heav­ily on “Com­merce”; & it trades on “Slaves & the Souls of Men”, as clearly stated in Rev­e­la­tion 18: 913 (King-​James Ver­sion). Here-​under; the Vic­tim has “No Rights”; but is regarded as a Com­mer­cial form of “Prop­erty”, just as referred to as the “Slave” in Revelation.

This is what Rou­tinely Hap­pens in All Civil-​Courts of the U.S.A., the var­i­ous States, & All Munic­i­pal­i­ties there-​under. And as out-​lined in the Accom­pa­ny­ing Com­plaint, this “Mas­sive Fraud” amongst Cor­rupted “Public-​Servant” Judges & Pros­e­cu­tors, Amounts To a Crim­i­nal Rack­e­teer­ing “Con­spir­acy”. And actu­ally, up-​on fur­ther con­tem­pla­tion of the Far-​Reaching Nature of this Mas­sive Con­spir­acy, & its Obvi­ous Under-​Lying Effort to Fun­da­men­tally Forcibly Dis­en­fran­chise Mas­sive Num­bers of Hon­or­able Amer­i­cans from their Constitutionally-​Secured Rights to be able to Access “Due Process of Law”; & to there-​by use the “Deadly-​Force” of Police & Sher­iff Depart­ment Offi­cers Against Them; here-​under it seems that the “Law” would con­sider all of this to Law­fully Amount To “Treason”.

To Counter this Mas­sive Fraud-​based “Con­spir­acy”, when Indi­vid­ual Mem­bers of Any State’s Body-​Politic are so Law­lessly Impris­oned, Phys­i­cally Harmed, or Ter­ror­ized; Quo-​Warranto/​State-​Ex-​Rel Process specif­i­cally gives these “Pri­vate Per­sons” so afflicted, the “Right” to “Con­trol the … State”, so-​as-​to there-​by: “Con­trol … the Actions of Oth­ers”. They Do This by “Pro­ceed­ing In the Name of the State”. This spe­cific word­ing refer­ring to the abil­ity of Par­tic­u­lar Indi­vid­u­als to “Con­trol … Oth­ers”, by way of their “Con­trol” over the “State”, is clearly set forth in both of the above citations.

In all such com­plaints as these, & includ­ing the one in accom­pa­ni­ment here-​to; the Com­plain­ing Par­ties areJoint Ten­ants in the Sov­er­eignty” through the “Social-​Compact” which Defines this “State”. This is shown through the fol­low­ing very early U.S. Supreme Court Cita­tion, as follows:

“The rev­o­lu­tion, or rather the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, found the peo­ple already united .… From the crown of Great Britain, the sov­er­eignty of their coun­try passed to the peo­ple of it; … . … “We the peo­ple of the United States, do ordain and estab­lish this con­sti­tu­tion.” Here we see the peo­ple act­ing as sov­er­eigns of the whole coun­try; and in the lan­guage of sov­er­eignty, estab­lish­ing a con­sti­tu­tion by which it was their will, that the state gov­ern­ments should be bound, and to which con­sti­tu­tions should be made to conform…

It will be suf­fi­cient to observe briefly, that the sov­er­eign­ties in Europe and par­tic­u­larly in Eng­land, exist on feu­dal prin­ci­ples. That sys­tem con­sid­ers the prince as the sov­er­eign, and the peo­ple his sub­jects; it regards his per­son as the object of alle­giance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal foot­ing with a sub­ject, either in a court of jus­tice or else­where. That sys­tem con­tem­plates him as being the foun­tain of honor and author­ity; and from his grace and grant, derives all fran­chises, immu­ni­ties and priv­i­leges; it is easy to per­ceive, that such a sov­er­eign could not be amend­able to a court of jus­tice, or sub­jected to judi­cial con­trol and actual con­straintThe same feu­dal ideas run through all their jurispru­dence, and con­stantly remind us of the dis­tinc­tion between the prince and the subject.

No such ideas obtain here; at the rev­o­lu­tion, the sov­er­eignty devolved on the peo­ple; and they are truly the sov­er­eigns of the coun­try, but they are sov­er­eigns with­out sub­jects… and have none to gov­ern but them­selves; the cit­i­zens of Amer­ica are equal as fellow-​citizens, and as joint ten­ants in the sov­er­eignty.

From the dif­fer­ences exist­ing between feu­dal sov­er­eign­ties and gov­ern­ments founded on com­pacts, it nec­es­sar­ily fol­lows that their respec­tive pre­rog­a­tives must dif­fer, Sov­er­eignty is the right to gov­ern; a nation or state sov­er­eign is the per­son or per­sons in whom that resides.

In Europe, the sov­er­eignty is gen­er­ally ascribed to the prince; here it rests with the peo­ple; there the sov­er­eign actu­ally admin­is­ters the gov­ern­ment; here never in a sin­gle instance; our gov­er­nors are the agents of the peo­ple; and at most stand in the same rela­tion to their sov­er­eign, in which the regents of Europe stand to their sov­er­eigns. Their princes have per­sonal pow­ers, dig­ni­ties and pre­em­i­nence, our rulers have none but offi­cial; nor do they par­take in the sov­er­eignty oth­er­wise, or in any other capac­ity, than as pri­vate cit­i­zens.” Chisholm Ex’r. v. Geor­gia; 2 Dall. {U.S.} 419, 1 L.Ed. 440, {U.S.Ga. 1793}.

In the above quoted text is the phrase “Joint Ten­ants in the Sov­er­eignty”. This means Each of “We the Peo­ple”, as “Indi­vid­u­als”, & Under Our Con­sti­tu­tional Social-​Compact. And the line that says “Our Gov­er­nors are the Agents of the Peo­ple”, means that all “Pub­lic Ser­vants”; such as the Civil “Judges” receiv­ing these doc­u­ments, are all “Pub­lic Ser­vants”, under “Master/​Servant Rela­tion­ship” to Each of “We the Peo­ple”. Yes, that is pre­cisely what was the “Original-​Intent” behind the Con­sti­tu­tions of these “United States of Amer­ica”, & her var­i­ous “States”. The Var­i­ous State Statutes Rec­og­nize this, & in Ore­gon it is rec­og­nized under ORS 162.005 (2-​a); as follows:

(2) “Pub­lic ser­vantincludes: (a) A pub­lic offi­cer or employee of the state or of any polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion thereof or of any gov­ern­men­tal instru­men­tal­ity within the state …”.

Here-​under; Each of “We the Peo­pleare theseJoint Ten­ants in the Sov­er­eignty” of these “United States of Amer­ica”. Each of us are in the “Mas­ter Posi­tionof this “Master/​Servant Rela­tion­ship”. This is our “Rela­tion” to the “Public-​Servants” of both this “State” & of these “United States of Amer­ica”. This is Why each of “We the Peo­ple” are all Law­fully Enti­tled to pro­ceed with all of the author­ity of any “Attor­ney Gen­eral” of this State or Nation; or of any “Dis­trict Attor­ney” with-​in any of the Coun­ties of this State. This is all plainly implied by the open­ing quoted-​wording of ORS 30.510; & the sim­i­lar word­ing of the sim­i­lar statutes of the other states.

All such “Pub­lic Ser­vants” as the “Attor­ney Gen­eral” or “Dis­trict Attor­ney”, as well as All of the Judges touch­ing upon All Cases such as this, are All “Ser­vants” of “We the Peo­ple”. These “Pub­lic Ser­vants” are under a par­tially Dis­abled “Rela­tion” to this “State of Ore­gon” ; where-​under they are in the “Ser­vant” posi­tion, under traditionally-​recognizable Civil/​Municipal “Master-​Servant” Rela­tion­ships. These “Pub­lic Ser­vants” are also rec­og­niz­able as “Civil Ser­vants”, & they are all rec­og­niz­able under “Law” as being under a “Legal-​Disability”.

This “Legal Dis­abil­ity” is trace­able back as far as “Magna-​Charta”; where the Barons Refused to Trust “King John” with such sig­nif­i­cant power to Directly Pros­e­cute the Com­mon Peo­ple. This is Why “Civil Ser­vants” Must Pro­ceed Through “Grand Juries” Before they can Secure “Crim­i­nal Indict­ments”. By them-​selves, these “Public-​Servants” have No Law­ful Author­ity to Directly File Criminal-​Complaints against Indi­vid­ual Mem­bers of the People’s Socially-​Compacted “State”. The terms of “Magna Charta” Specif­i­cally Pro­hibit this. And that great old Common-​Law Doc­u­ment is Grand-​Fathered In to our var­i­ous State Con­sti­tu­tions, through such pro­vi­sions as the Ninth and Tenth Amend­ments at the Fed­eral Level; & through sim­i­lar Con­sti­tu­tional Pro­vi­sions at the var­i­ous State Lev­els. We will be glad to pro­vide a fuller cita­tions up-​on spe­cific good-​faith request.

But the “Civil/​Municipal” Office of the “Attor­ney Gen­eral”, as well as the Insti­tu­tion of the so-​called “Grand Jury”; have Both been Specif­i­cally Con­structed as “Fic­tions of Law”; for the Spe­cific Pur­pose of Thwart­ing the under-​lying Organic-​Law of our Con­sti­tu­tional States & Nation, as pre­served through “Magna Charta”. Though the “Gand Jury” is loved by many hon­or­able peo­ple, its Only Pur­pose is to Autho­rize the Arrest &/​or Pros­e­cu­tion of a Fellow-​Member of the Body-​Politic when No Natural/​Real Per­son has Sworn-​Out a Criminal-​Complaint Against Him. The so-​called “Grand Jury” can do Noth­ing which a Sin­gle Sov­er­eign Amer­i­can can not do by merely fol­low­ing “Due Process of Law” & Directly “Swearing-​Out” a “Crim­i­nal Com­plaint” him-​self. These so-​called “Grand Juries” Exist Solely for the Con­ve­nience of Cor­rupted “Civil/​Private-​Law Pros­e­cu­tors” who can Not Get Any Natural/​Real Per­son to Swear-​Out a Criminal-​Complaint.

To be fair; these “Obstruc­tions” were in place under the “Civil/​Municipal Law” in Eng­land, even Prior to the very birth of our Nation through our ances­tors “Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence” in 1776.

Each of “We the Peo­ple”, includ­ing these Com­plain­ing Par­ties; are under No such “Legal Dis­abil­ity, as are our Constitutionally-​Recognizable “Pub­lic Ser­vants”. We may state “Crim­i­nal” Com­plaints Directly. Such is plain from the above cita­tions, & includ­ing Oregon’s Revised Statutes, at ORS 30.510. And in fur­ther sup­port of these ren­der­ings of “Law”, 133.007, 133.015, & 135.715; declare sim­i­larly; & two of these read as follows:

133.007 Suf­fi­ciency of infor­ma­tion or com­plaint.

(1) An infor­ma­tion or com­plaint is suf­fi­cient if it can be under­stood there­from that:

(a) The defen­dant is named, or if the name of the defen­dant can­not be dis­cov­ered, that the defen­dant is described by a fic­ti­tious name, with the state­ment that the real name of the defen­dant is unknown to the com­plainant. (b) The offense was com­mit­ted within the juris­dic­tion of the court, except where, as pro­vided by law, the act, though done with­out the county in which the court is held, is tri­able within. © The offense was com­mit­ted at some time prior to the fil­ing of the infor­ma­tion or com­plaint and within the time lim­ited by law for the com­mence­ment of an action therefor.

(2) The infor­ma­tion or com­plaint shall not con­tain alle­ga­tions that the defen­dant has pre­vi­ously been con­victed of any offense which might sub­ject the defen­dant to enhanced penal­ties. (3) Words used in a statute to define an offense need not be strictly fol­lowed in the infor­ma­tion or com­plaint, but other words con­vey­ing the same mean­ing may be used.”

135.715 Effect of non­prej­u­di­cial defects in form of accusatory instrument.

No accusatory instru­ment is insuf­fi­cient, nor can the trial, judg­ment or other pro­ceed­ings thereon be affected, by rea­son of a defect or imper­fec­tion in a mat­ter of form which does not tend to the prej­u­dice of the sub­stan­tial rights of the defen­dant upon the mer­its.

This State’s Statutes & Con­sti­tu­tion Indi­cate Clearly that the “Law” Gov­ern­ing the setting-​forth of a “Crim­i­nal Com­plaint” by a Mem­ber of the Body-​Politic of the State, is very “Lib­eral”. The main Goal here is obvi­ously directed to Sup­port the Fun­da­men­tal Prin­ci­ples of Quick & Effi­cient Admin­is­tra­tion of Jus­tice. To Make “Indi­vid­ual Amer­i­cans” Pro­ceed Through “Dis­trict Attor­neys” or “Attor­neys Gen­eral” would “Obstruct” this Gen­eral Constitutional-​Principle which Requires the “Quick & Effi­cient Admin­is­tra­tion of Justice”.

There is No-​where any indi­ca­tion of any form of under-​lying “Mis-​Trust” of the com­mon Peo­ple, in their abil­ity to respon­si­bly apply such Power. There is No Where Any Indi­ca­tion that the Pros­e­cu­tion of Crim­i­nal Com­plaints is to be Exclu­sively Lodged in the Hands of such Civil/​Municipal “Public-​Servants” as “District-​Attorneys” & “Attorneys-​General”.

The fact that these immense pow­ers have been Law­fully Placed In the Hands of the Com­mon Peo­ple; is gen­er­ally rec­og­nized in the var­i­ous pro­vi­sions of most state con­sti­tu­tions; and espe­cially in their var­i­ous “Bill of Rights” pro­vi­sions. In Oregon’s Con­sti­tu­tion; this is shown clearly (among other pro­vi­sions) and quite promi­nently in the fol­low­ing citations:

Pre­am­ble: We the peo­ple of the State of Ore­gon, to the end that Jus­tice be estab­lished, order main­tained, and lib­erty per­pet­u­ated, do ordain this Constitution.

Arti­cle 1, Sec­tion 1. (Nat­ural rights inher­ent in peo­ple). We declare that all men, when they form a social com­pact are equal in right: that all power is inher­ent in the peo­ple, and all free gov­ern­ments are founded on their author­ity, and insti­tuted for their peace, safety, and hap­pi­ness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abol­ish the gov­ern­ment in such man­ner as they may think proper.”

Arti­cle 1, Sec­tion 10. (Admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice). No court shall be secret, but jus­tice shall be admin­is­tered, openly and with­out pur­chase, com­pletely and with­out delay, and every man shall have rem­edy by due course of law for injury done him in his per­son, prop­erty, or reputation.

If “All Power is Inher­ent in the Peo­ple”, as Arti­cle 1 Sec­tion 1 above declares; then surely “We the Peo­ple” have the Power to “Pros­e­cute” Our Own Criminal-​Complaints “Directly”. Under these Con­sti­tu­tional Con­cepts, “We the Peo­ple” do Not Need the Inter­ven­tion of such Civil/​Municipal “Pub­lic Ser­vants” as “Attor­neys Gen­eral” or “Dis­trict Attor­neys”. And if Jus­tice is to be Admin­is­tered “With­out Delay”, as Arti­cle 1 Sec­tion 10 declares above; then plac­ing anyUn-​Necessary Require­ment” on the Com­mon Indi­vid­ual seek­ing that “Jus­tice”, is going to work a “Delay” in his abil­ity to have such Jus­tice deliv­ered to him. Any such a “Delay” would clearly be an “Un-​Constitutional” Vio­la­tion of the above Con­sti­tu­tional Declarations.

The Usurpa­tion & Sub­ver­sion of the Author­ity of “The State”:

Per­son­nel from the State & Fed­eral “Depart­ments of Jus­tice”, & the var­i­ous local “Dis­trict Attor­ney Offices” are fash­ion­ably Con­sid­ered to be the Only Peo­ple Capa­ble of Bring­ing “Criminal-​Complaints” before the Courts of this States Civil Gov­ern­ment. Here-​under; these “Pub­lic Ser­vants” fre­quently Pro­ceed “In the Name of”, and “on the Behalf of” the “State”. Every-​one who has observed such pro­ceed­ings, has clearly wit­nessed such “Gov­ern­ment Pros­e­cu­tors” rou­tinely “Pro­ceed­ing” “In the Name of & On the Behalf of the State”.

But under the cita­tions ren­dered fur­ther above here-​in; it log­i­cally fol­lows that the “Field of Can­di­dates” who have a Law­fully “Right” to Pros­e­cute such “Crim­i­nal Cases”, Must Be greatly “Expanded” so-​as to Allow for Com­mon Peo­ple to Actively Pros­e­cute such cases. That would include the Class-​Action Plain­tiffs spec­i­fied in the Criminal-​Complaint pre­sented in accom­pa­ni­ment here-​to. This is pre­cisely Iden­ti­cal to the under­ly­ing “Intent” behind the mul­ti­tude of “State-​Ex-​Rel” Statutes in almost every State in the Union, & as quoted from Ore­gon Statutes at the open­ing of this document.

In their efforts to Sub­vert & Usurp the Law­ful Author­ity of “We the Peo­ple” to Directly Pros­e­cute Our Own “Crim­i­nal Com­plaints” through this “Quo-​Warranto” Process; Cor­rupted Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors & Judges have fre­quently raised such statutes as the following:

34.810: Scire facias and quo war­ranto. The writ of scire facias, the writ of quo war­ranto, and pro­ceed­ings by infor­ma­tion in the nature of quo war­ranto are abol­ished, and the reme­dies hereto­fore obtain­able under those forms may be obtained by action in the mode pre­scribed in ORS 30.510 to 30.640.

Here-​under, the sim­plis­tic argu­ment is fre­quently advanced that the Com­mon Peo­ple can-​Not pro­ceed in this man­ner, because “Quo-​Warranto has ben Abol­ished”. Howe-​ver; when the full con­text of this single-​sentence Statute is exam­ined; it clearly states that “the reme­dies hereto­fore avail­able under those forms may be obtained … in 30.510 … .”

When this Statute is read in this full con­text, it becomes clear that the word “Abol­ished” has absolutely No Sub­stan­tive Effect on the Avail­abil­ity of tra­di­tional “Quo-​Warranto” Reme­dies to “We the Peo­ple”. The Old Eng­lish forms of “Quo War­ranto” & “Actions in the Nature of Quo War­ranto” may be “Abol­ished” so far as those terms are used Statu­to­rily; how-​ever the Vast Repos­i­tory of “Law” in sup­port of those par­tic­u­lar actions have been Trans­ferred directly on over to ORS 30.510, as clearly shown by this above-​quoted 34.810 Statute. This so-​called “Abol­ish­ing” of “Quo-​Warranto” is noth­ing new. Case Law Prece­dent on this point reads:

“Or. 1912. Under L.O.L. ss 363, ORS 34.810 abol­ish­ing writs of quo war­ranto and pro­ceed­ings in the nature of quo war­ranto, the right to relief under sec­tion 366, sub 3, ORS 30.510, by action at law in the name of the state … is anal­o­gous to the older meth­ods.” State Ex Rel Brown v Sen­gstaken, 122 P. 292, 61 Ore 455, Am .Ann.Cas. 1914 B.230 (28 Or D 2d –86)

And on the spe­cific issue of the Law­ful Author­ity of the Com­mon Peo­ple to Directly Pros­e­cute “Crim­i­nal Com­plaints”; this new phrase “Infor­ma­tion in the Nature of Quo War­ranto” becomes very impor­tant to closely exam­ine; because it is under this spe­cific body of Law where-​in is Included the Right to pro­ceed “Crim­i­nally”. “Cor­pus Juris Secun­dum” sum­ma­rizes as follows:

Quo War­ranto: The writ of quo war­ranto is an ancient com­mon law, pre­rog­a­tive writ and rem­edy. Indeed, it is one of the most ancient and impor­tant writs known to the com­mon law. The ancient writ was in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, fran­chise, or lib­erty, to inquire by what author­ity he sup­ported his claim, in order to deter­mine the right, or in the case of nonuser, long neglect, mis­use, or abuse of fran­chise, a writ com­mand­ing defen­dant to show by what war­rant he exer­cised such fran­chise, never hav­ing had any grant of it, or hav­ing for­feited it by neglect or abuse.

… a quo war­ranto pro­ceed­ing is of a pub­lic nature, and not a per­sonal action, it being rather an inqui­si­tion which the sov­er­eignty, by its courts, insti­tutes to ascer­tain whether its pre­rog­a­tive rights have been invaded; … . … quo war­ranto is a direct, rather than a col­lat­eral, attack on the record or other mat­ter assailed … . … Orig­i­nally the infor­ma­tion in the nature of quo war­ranto, which suc­ceeded the ancient writ, was essen­tially a crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion insti­tuted for the pur­pose of sub­ject­ing defen­dant to pun­ish­ment by fine, as well as judge­ment of ouster … Thus quo war­ranto, or a pro­ceed­ing in the nature thereof, is the sole and exclu­sive rem­edy and method by which var­i­ous mat­ters may be tried and deter­mined, as, for exam­ple, the right and title to office … .” Cor­pus Juris Secun­dum; West Pub­lish­ing Com­pany; Vol­ume 74 Pages 174189.

Infor­ma­tion in the Nature of Quo War­ranto” is shown above in “Cor­pus Juris Secun­dum”, to be “essen­tially a Crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion”. Here-​under, “Rea­son­able” Peo­ple will see that this process does work to estab­lish a Rem­edy whereby “Pri­vate Par­ties” can access Pub­lic “Crim­i­nal” Pro­ce­dural Reme­dies. Such General/​Public-​Law is in Clear Har­mony with the “… All Power is Inher­ent in the Peo­ple …” Gen­eral Prin­ci­ple of Oregon’s Constitutional-​Law, as set forth pre­vi­ously in Arti­cle 1 Sec­tion 1. Any Other Pol­icy; is Directly Antag­o­nis­tic there-​to; as we are sure that Any Conscience-​Bound Jury will Agree.

Here­un­der, it is shown that any pre­dis­po­si­tion by Public-​Servant Judges towards Lim­it­ing the 30.510 “Action at Law” to merely those Reme­dies which are “Civil” in nature, is clearly in error. By reduc­ing these Reme­dies to “Civil”, such Reme­dies are reduced to “Pri­vate”. This is shown here:

Civil Action: Action brought to enforce, redress, or pro­tect pri­vate rights. In gen­eral, all types of actions other than crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings.”

Civil Law: That body of law which every par­tic­u­lar nation, com­mon­wealth, or city has estab­lished pecu­liarly for itself; more prop­erly calledmunic­i­pal” law, to dis­tin­guish it from the “law of nature”, & from inter­na­tional law. Laws con­cerned with civil or pri­vate rights & reme­dies, as con­trasted with crim­i­nal laws.” Black’s Law Dic­tio­nary 5th Edtn, 1979.

These cita­tions show that by allow­ing Quo-​Warranto Pro­ceed­ings to be reduced to “Civil Pro­ceed­ings”, that they would thereby be reduced to resolv­ing “Pri­vate” con­flicts. This is as in Con­flicts “Between Two Cit­i­zens”; & which do Not involve a “Breach of the Peace”. This Private/​Civil Juris­dic­tion is mostly focused on such super­fi­cial con­cerns as “Con­tract Enforce­ment”. It is truly amaz­ing that the Com­mon Peo­ple are so Obstructed in their abil­ity to Directly Pros­e­cute such “Crim­i­nal Pros­e­cu­tions”, when this is pre­cisely what they need in order to secure their “Peace Safety, & Hap­pi­ness”; as so stren­u­ously Pri­or­i­tized State & National Constitutions.

Under the light of ORS 34.810, it becomes clear that ORS 30.510 is “Intended” to Encom­pass “Infor­ma­tion in the Nature of Quo War­ranto”. The above –quoted CJS clearly sum­ma­rizes the mat­ter by accu­rately stat­ing that such actionwas essen­tially a Crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion”. Here-​under, “Rea­son­able” Peo­ple will promptly see that ORS 34.810 & 30.510 taken together do work to estab­lish a Rem­edy where-​by “Pri­vate Par­ties” can access Pub­lic & “Crim­i­nal” Pro­ce­dural Reme­dies. Such is in clear har­mony with the “… All Power is Inher­ent in the Peo­ple …” state­ment in Arti­cle 1 Sec­tion 1 of Oregon’s Con­sti­tu­tion; as pre­vi­ously quoted.

This shows that By Reduc­ing the scope of ORS 30.510 to merely “Civil” Reme­dies, that there-​by would be Obstructed the Right of Indi­vid­ual Mem­bers of this State’s Body-​Politic of “We the Peo­ple” to Invoke Con­sti­tu­tional “Due Process of Law”, so-​as-​to Non-​Violently Defend OUR STATE from Con­sti­tu­tion­ally Rec­og­niz­able “Ene­mies of the State”. And this is Espe­cially Impor­tant con­cern­ing OUR Abil­ity to Defend OUR STATE from Subversively-​Corrupted “Public-​Servants” who would Abuse their Posi­tions of “Public-​Trust”. As shown in the pre­vi­ously quoted ORS34.810, the essen­tial ele­ments of all “Quo War­ranto” related “Common-​Law Actions”, are incor­po­rated into ORS 30.510.

Fur­ther, the vast repos­i­tory of tra­di­tional “Quo War­ranto” related “case-​law prece­dents” show that this Rem­edy was “Pub­lic” in Nature; & that through the “Infor­ma­tion in the Nature of Quo War­ranto”, this body of Law included the Right to pro­ceed “Crim­i­nally”. As quoted above; “Cor­pus Juris Secun­dum” sum­ma­rized that well.

Clearly, under his Private/​Civil Form of Pro­ce­dure; the Inter­est of the “State of Ore­gon” in it’s “Public-​Capacity” can-​Not be served. This is true because the “Private-​Party” Indi­vid­ual which is specif­i­cally autho­rized to Pro­ceed under such Statutes as ORS 30.510, wound there-​under be “Barred” from enter­ing the “Pub­lic Realm”. Such pol­icy as this would sur­gi­cally Abort the Guts of the ORS 34.810 “Quo War­ranto” from the more-​general 30.510 Statute. This would be in Direct Vio­la­tion of the clear word­ing of ORS 34.810, which specif­i­cally man­dates that these tra­di­tional & well-​settled “Quo War­ranto” Reme­dies for “Crim­i­nal Pros­e­cu­tions” are to be Pre­served to the Common-​People under ORS 30.510. It would also Vio­late this Statute’s indi­ca­tors that these Crim­i­nal Reme­dies are to be Equally Avail­able to the “Pri­vate Party” pro­ceed­ing there-​under, as to the “Dis­trict Attorney”.

By way of fur­ther exam­ple, a quick look at ORS 133.220 & 133.225, it is shown that “Pri­vate Per­sons” can make “Arrests” when­ever they see “Crimes” Com­mit­ted. Now “Rea­son­able” Peo­ple will surely ask “Why” would the Leg­is­la­ture mod­ernly allow “Pri­vate Per­sons” the Power to go around “Arrest­ing” Crim­i­nals for “Pub­lic” Crimes, & there-​by actu­ally Risk­ing direct Blood-​Shed; and yet Not Allow those Same Peo­ple the Right to “Pros­e­cute” those “Pub­lic” Crimes?

Such is surely penny-​wise & pound-​foolish, dys­func­tional; & “Incon­sis­tent Sets of Direc­tions” lead­ing directly to the Soci­o­log­i­cal “Ner­vous Break­down” of “Pablov’s Dogs” as referred to by Pro­fes­sor Heart; as follows:

The law which gov­erns daily liv­ing in the United States is a sin­gle sys­tem of law; it speaks in rela­tion to any par­tic­u­lar sit­u­a­tion with only one ulti­mately author­i­ta­tive voice, how­ever dif­fi­cult it may be on occa­sion to dis­cern in advance which of two or more con­flict­ing voices really car­ries author­ity. In the long run and in the large, this must be so. Peo­ple repeat­edly sub­jected, like Pablov’s dogs, to two or more incon­sis­tent sets of direc­tions, with­out means of resolv­ing the incon­sis­ten­cies, could not fail in the end to react like the dogs did. The soci­ety, col­lec­tively, would suf­fer a ner­vous break­down.”Pro­fes­sor Hart; 54 Colum­bia Law Review 489497 (1954)

Because 236.010 (as quoted above) shows that “An office shall become vacant … if … the incum­bent is con­victed of an infa­mous crime, or any offense involv­ing the vio­la­tion of the oath …”; here-​under, it is shown that Con­vic­tion of cer­tain Crimes involv­ing Vio­la­tion of Oath to uphold the Con­sti­tu­tion of this State of Ore­gon or the Untied States of Amer­ica, Works That “For­fei­ture of the Office”, as referred to in ORS 30.510.

Here-​under, & by way of “Rela­tion” to this “State”, & as allowed in ORS 30.510; “Pri­vate Par­ties” have the Right to Invoke Process to “Oust” an accused cor­rupted “Public-​Officer” from his Office; & he has the Right to do this when the Only Grounds for such an “Ouster” is a “Crim­i­nal Act” alleged to have been com­mit­ted by the “Pub­lic Officer”.

Fur­ther here-​under; the Arti­fi­cial Lim­i­ta­tion which is inclined towards by some Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors & Judges Against allow­ing any “Criminal-​Prosecution” by “Pri­vate Par­ties” would entirely Shut-​Down the Abil­ity of these “Pri­vate Par­ties” so-​as-​to Show that the “Crim­i­nal Acts” done by these “Pub­lic Offi­cers” … “Makes a For­fei­ture of the Office …”.

Such an incli­na­tion to Pro­hibit such “Pri­vate Par­ties” from show­ing such a “For­fei­ture of Pub­lic Office” by way of Complained-​of “Crim­i­nal Acts” is a here-​by clearly Proven to be a most seri­ous “Error”. Fur­ther, after such a clear expla­na­tion of these “dynam­ics of law” as pre­sented here-​in, any such inter­pre­ta­tion by pre­sid­ing public-​servant Judges; may eas­ily be con­strued by Juries who even­tu­ally try this case, to be Evi­dence of “Con­spir­acy” by such a Judge to Pro­tect the Orig­i­nally Crim­i­nally Com­plained of Cor­rupted Public-​Servant.

The accom­pa­ny­ing Crim­i­nal Com­plaint seeks to accom­plish major reforms in the present man­ner in which gov­ern­men­tal per­son­nel accom­plish their duties. This goal is sought through the pros­e­cu­tion & con­vic­tion of a large num­ber of accused cor­rupted “Public-​Servants”, all of whom are tak­ing crim­i­nally un-​fair advan­tage of present Defects in our Amer­i­can & var­i­ous State sys­tems of gov­ern­ment. “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” are at the very Core of these Defects in our present sys­tem of gov­ern­ment; & many of them are names in the accom­pa­ny­ing Complaint.

This case indi­rectly seeks to estab­lish a “Prece­dent”, where-​under Con­trol over “Criminal-​Prosecutions” in this State, is Wrested From such present “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” as State & Fed­eral “Attor­neys Gen­eral” & the Local County “Dis­trict Attorneys”.

Here-​under; these “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” have a “Con­flict of Inter­est” as it relates to such Broad-​Based Accu­sa­tions as con­tained in the accom­pa­ny­ing Crim­i­nal Com­plaint. Car­ried to its log­i­cal con­clu­sion, & the People’s Author­ity will actu­ally gain its firm foot­ing, & Com­mon Amer­i­cans every-​where will dis­cover that they can Directly Pros­e­cute Criminal-​Complaints. It is self-​evident, that under such a sce­nario; the “Job Secu­rity” of these “Pub­lic Ser­vant Pros­e­cu­tors” is quite liable to “Wither and Die”; just like Karl Marx so declared that the “Com­mu­nist State” would even­tu­ally do, under truly popularly-​based governance.

The point is, that, if this Quo-​Warranto/​State-​Ex-​Rel Process is actu­ally allowed to func­tion for the Com­mon Peo­ple in the man­ners in which this State’s Con­sti­tu­tion & Statutes Requite; then in their most favor­able light, these “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” will either be “Out of a Job”, or they will have their Wages & Influ­ence in the Com­mu­nity severely Cur­tailed. Such Sig­nif­i­cant Impact on the wages and influ­ence in the com­mu­nity as this, would tend to Prej­u­dice & “Taint” the most vir­tu­ous of men & women. Here-​under; “Pub­lic Ser­vant Pros­e­cu­tors” should Not be allowed Con­trol over this Crim­i­nal Com­plaint. They might be allowed to assist, & they might even be ordered by this court to assist. This would actu­ally be wel­comed by these litigants.

But such “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” should Not be allowed in-​to a posi­tion of Con­trol of this case. We com­posed the accom­pa­ny­ing Criminal-​Complaint our-​selves. The very Nature of wide-​spread “Criminal-​Conspiracy” alleged there-​in, of Neces­sity Impli­cates a Prej­u­di­cial “Con­flict of Inter­est” from with-​in their realm. For if such a wide-​spread “Con­spir­acy” as this to actu­ally exists, then of neces­sity that indi­cates that those “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” have been turn­ing a prej­u­di­cial “Blind Eye” towards those so com­monly & openly com­mit­ting such Crimes.

In fact, & as the accom­pa­ny­ing com­plaint indi­cates, many such “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors” are directly Named there-​in for Criminally-​Abusing their present defacto Monop­oly over the Criminal-​Prosecution Process. It seems rea­son­able to us that such peo­ple would be quite likely to feel a sym­pa­thetic & prej­u­di­cial in favor of their fel­low “Public-​Servant Pros­e­cu­tors”. We presently see no sce­nario under which any per­son so employed could be trusted to impar­tially direct the pros­e­cu­tion of this case.

We real­ize this is an un-​orthodox & novel man­ner of pro­ceed­ing; & that per­haps it will cause some sig­nif­i­cant dis­com­fort to many of the Judges hear­ing it. Yet we also real­ize that this State’s “Rules of Civil Pro­ce­dure”; at Rule 17, & gov­ern­ing the “Sign­ing of Plead­ings …”; declares:

“Cer­ti­fi­ca­tions to court. C(1) An attor­ney or party who signs, files or oth­er­wise sub­mits an argu­ment in sup­port of a plead­ing, motion or other paper makes the cer­ti­fi­ca­tions to the court iden­ti­fied in sub­sec­tions (2) to (5) of this sec­tion, and fur­ther cer­ti­fies that the cer­ti­fi­ca­tions are based on the person’s rea­son­able knowl­edge, infor­ma­tion and belief, formed after the mak­ing of such inquiry as is rea­son­able under the cir­cum­stances. C(2) A party or attor­ney cer­ti­fies that the plead­ing, motion or other paper is not being pre­sented for any improper pur­pose, such as to harass or to cause unnec­es­sary delay or need­less increase in the cost of lit­i­ga­tion. C(3) An attor­ney cer­ti­fies that the claims, defenses, and other legal posi­tions taken in the plead­ing, motion or other paper are war­ranted by exist­ing law or by a non­friv­o­lous argu­ment for the exten­sion, mod­i­fi­ca­tion or rever­sal of exist­ing law or the estab­lish­ment of new law.”

Rule 17, Ore­gon Rules of Civil Pro­ce­dure.

The gen­eral “The­ory of Law” set-​forth in these doc­u­ments, is all cen­tered around the idea of the “Em-​Powerment” of the Com­mon Amer­i­can Peo­ple. Cita­tions have been exhaus­tively pre­sented here-​in, sup­port­ing the idea that these con­cepts are very well-​founded in this State’ s Con­sti­tu­tional & Statu­tory Law. Here-​under, the above-​cited Rule 17-​C is well-​complied with, in that these Inter­pre­ta­tions of Law are “war­ranted by exist­ing law or by a non-​frivolous argu­ment for the exten­sion, mod­i­fi­ca­tion or rever­sal of exist­ing law” .

The here-​in pre­sented cita­tions can make the real­ity of this Law Clear to our fel­low com­mon dis­en­fran­chised working-​class Amer­i­cans. And these Ex-​Rel Plain­tiffs have an Ex-​Rel Right to present these pre­cise issues to them, through the pub­lic judicial-​process sought in these doc­u­ments. More cita­tions in sup­port of all of this, are now pre­sented as follows:

“And the Con­sti­tu­tion itself is in every real sense a lawthe “Law­mak­ers being the Peo­ple them­selves”, in whom under Our Sys­tem All Polit­i­cal Power & Sov­er­eignty pri­mar­ily Resides, & through whom such Power & Sov­er­eignty pri­mar­ily Speaks.

It is by that law, and not oth­er­wise, that the leg­isla­tive, exec­u­tive, and judi­cial agen­cies which it cre­ated exer­cise such polit­i­cal author­ity as they have been per­mit­ted to pos­sess.

The Con­sti­tu­tion speaks for itself in terms so plain that to mis­un­der­stand their import is not ratio­nally pos­si­ble. “We the peo­ple of the United States,” it says, “do ordain and estab­lish this Constitution …”

Ordain and Estab­lish ! These are def­i­nite words of enact­ment, and with­out more would stamp what fol­lows with dig­nity and char­ac­ter of law. The framers of the Con­sti­tu­tion, how­ever, were not con­tent to let the mat­ter rest here, but pro­vided explic­itly — “This Con­sti­tu­tion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pur­suance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; …” The supremacy of the Con­sti­tu­tion as law is thus declared with­out qual­i­fi­ca­tion.

That supremacy is absolute; the supremacy of a statute enacted by Con­gress is not absolute but con­di­tioned upon its being made in pur­suance to the Con­sti­tu­tion. And a judi­cial tri­bunal, clothed by that instru­ment with com­plete judi­cial power, and, there­fore, by the very nature of the power, required to ascer­tain and apply the law to the facts in every case or pro­ceed­ing prop­erly brought for adju­di­ca­tion, must apply the supreme law and reject the infe­rior statute when­ever the two con­flict.” Car­pen­ter v. Carter, 298 US 296 (1935)

The above cita­tion clearly states that “a judi­cial tri­bunal * * * (is) required to ascer­tain and apply the law to the facts in every case or pro­ceed­ing prop­erly brought for adju­di­ca­tion, …”.

Here-​under, the Judges before whom the accom­pa­ny­ing com­plaint has been pre­sented, are “Required” to “Ascer­tain and Apply the Law to the Facts” of this Com­plaint, directly against those Indi­vid­u­als named there-​in”. Another cita­tion in sup­port of all of this, is the following:

We [Judges] have no more right to decline the exer­cise of juris­dic­tion which is given, then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be trea­son to the Con­sti­tu­tion.” U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Vir­ginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821).

The “pre­de­ces­sors in inter­est” of “We the Peo­ple” Gave the Judges of this State their Fran­chise as “Pub­lic Ser­vants” with-​in Our State’s Judi­cial Depart­ment. This has been Passed Down to Us Mod­ern Mem­bers of our gen­eral State’s “Body-​Politic”. Here-​under; “We” have now come before the Judges of this State by way of our “Rela­tion” there-​to. Here-​under; we are “Demand­ing” that such Public-​Servant Judges exer­cise their “Orig­i­nal Juris­dic­tion” to “Try” this case. This means: “at the incep­tion” of this case, from the Fil­ing of the accom­pa­ny­ing Com­plaint, For-​ward.

Bur­den of Proof”:

The fol­low­ing cita­tions show that the “Bur­den of Proof “ is On The “Accused”:

“A writ of quo war­ranto is one of the extra­or­di­nary reme­dies afforded by law, though it still retains some of it’s ancient crim­i­nal aspects, such as enabling the court to fine the defen­dant, yet it casts the bur­den of proof upon the defen­dant to make dis­clo­sure con­cern­ing the facts averred ‚by the rela­tor.” State ex rel. Hall­garth v. School Dist. No. 23, Union County, 172 P.2d 655, 179 Or. 441. (1946) (Cita­tion from 28 Ore­gon Digest, 2nd86)

Quo War­ranto: 2. Plead­ings in quo war­ranto are anom­alous. In ordi­nary legal pro­ceed­ings, the plain­tiff, whether he be the state or a per­son, is bound to show a case against the defen­dant. But in an infor­ma­tion of quo war­ranto, as well as in the writ for which it sub­sti­tuted, the order is reversed. The state is not bound to show any­thing, but the defen­dant is bound to show that he has a right to the fran­chise or office in ques­tion; and if he fail to show author­ity, judge­ment must be given against him. Law Dic­tio­nary, by John Bou­vier; 18681870

This is proper in the grander scheme of “the Law”, because it is a “Priv­i­lege” to be a “Pub­lic Ser­vant”, & Peo­ple En-​Trusted with such Power should be “Vig­i­lant” in Keep­ing such “Pub­lic Records” as to Prove that They are Exer­cis­ing their Offices of “Pub­lic Trust” in Respon­si­ble Man­ners. As the above cita­tions show, if such “Pub­lic Ser­vants” are So Arro­gant in their Abuses of Office as to Fail to Records the Law­ful­ness of their Activ­i­ties, then they should be Imme­di­ately Removed there-​from.

And that is pre­cisely the Man­ner in which “the State” & we Plain­tiffs listed in the accom­pa­ny­ing Quo-​Warranto /​State-​Ex-​Rel Criminal-​Complaint are Mov­ing This Court.

Local State Court’s Juris­dic­tion over Fed­eral Offi­cers:

Some might ques­tion the “Law­ful Author­ity” of the Courts of this State to hold Fed­eral Offi­cers, such ad “Judges; Account­able; under Sworn Accu­sa­tions from some of the Peo­ple of this State, that they have engaged in “Felony Crimes”. In sup­port of our posi­tion that this is “Law­ful”; we cite the “Sixth Amend­ment” to the US Con­sti­tu­tion, which specif­i­cally declares:

“In all crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and pub­lic trial, by an impar­tial jury of the State and dis­trict wherein the crime shall have been com­mit­ted, which dis­trict shall have been pre­vi­ously ascer­tained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accu­sa­tion; to be con­fronted with the wit­nesses against him; to have com­pul­sory process for obtain­ing wit­nesses in his favor, and to have the Assis­tance of Coun­sel for his defence.”

And Arti­cle 3, Sec­tion 2, Clause 3; of that same doc­u­ment, reads sim­i­larly, as follows:

“The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeach­ment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been com­mit­ted …”

These two very pow­er­ful pro­vi­sions, make it quite clear (to rea­son­able peo­ple) that the Trail of “All Crimes” & “Crim­i­nal Pros­e­cu­tions” are to be con­ducted in a De-​Centralized man­ner, by the local courts of the State. It was clearly with-​in the “Orig­i­nal Intent” of the Framers of the Fed­eral “US Con­sti­tu­tion” doc­u­ment, that when Fed­eral Offi­cers are Accused of “Crimes”, that the Trial of those Crimes is to be con­ducted by the Courts of the var­i­ous States.

Here-​under, the Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment has No Con­sti­tu­tional “Crim­i­nal Juris­dic­tion”. The entirety of “Title 18″, the so-​called “US Crim­i­nal Code” is all in place as the direct result of Extra-​Constitutional “Emer­gency War-​Powers” Dec­la­ra­tions. This gets into another filed of study, & doc­u­men­ta­tion in sup­port there-​of can be pro­vided at the appro­pri­ate time, if necessary.

Here-​under; the argu­ment might be advanced that the local “Fed­eral Court Build­ings” in this State, are Sep­a­rate “Sov­er­eign Federal-​Jurisdictions”; over which this State, & it’s Supreme Court, have “No Juris­dic­tion”. This would all be rather sim­i­lar to how an Embassy of a For­eign Nation oper­ates. For instance, many have heard of how the For­eign Del­e­gates of the United Nations just Ignore the Mis­de­meanor “Traffic-​Tickets” which they rou­tinely receive in New-​York City. The same would prob­a­bly be true for such Mis­de­meanors with the Fed­eral Court Judges in this State. These are all “Malum Pro­hibi­tum” based so-​called “Crimes”; and they are fre­quently called “Quasi-​Crimes”.

How-​ever; when “Malum-​In-​Se” based “Class A Felony” Kid­nap­ing & Rack­e­teer­ing “Criminal-​Complaints” are “Sworn Out” & Filed, as done in the accom­pa­ny­ing Com­plaint; then an entire “Dif­fer­ent Set of Rules” Apply. In New York City, No For­eign Emis­sary would be Immune from any “Felony” Kid­nap­ing or Rack­e­teer­ing charges. And sim­i­larly, Fed­eral Dis­trict Court Judges are Not Immune from such Malum-​In-​Se based “Felony Crimes” which they might Com­mit with-​in the Sov­er­eign Geo­graph­i­cal Bound­aries of Our Local State.

All of these acts are Rec­og­niz­able as “Crimes” with-​in the US Code, & in the Statutes of the var­i­ous States. For exam­ple, Ore­gon Revised Statutes specif­i­cally declares at: “ORS 162.415, con­cern­ing: “Offenses Against the State and Pub­lic Jus­tice”; as follows:

162.415: Offi­cial mis­con­duct in the first degree. (1) A pub­lic ser­vant com­mits the crime of offi­cial mis­con­duct in the first degree if with intent to obtain a ben­e­fit or to harm another:

(a) The pub­lic ser­vant know­ingly fails to per­form a duty imposed upon the pub­lic ser­vant by law or one clearly inher­ent in the nature of office; or (b) The pub­lic ser­vant know­ingly per­forms an act con­sti­tut­ing an unau­tho­rized exer­cise in offi­cial duties

In order to escape the author­ity of this statute; Fed­eral Offi­cers would have to also escape such state-​level man­dates as ORS 162.005 (2-​a); which Defines “Pub­lic Ser­vant” as follows:

(2) “Pub­lic ser­vantincludes: (a) A pub­lic offi­cer or employee of the state or of any polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion thereof or of any gov­ern­men­tal instru­men­tal­ity with-​in the state …”.

It would seem clear that Fed­eral Judges & other Fed­eral Offi­cers Are “Offi­cers or Employ­ees of … a(ny) gov­ern­men­tal instru­men­tal­ity with-​in the state”. That is how the statute reads; that is what the statute says. And it har­mo­nizes well with the above cita­tions from the Fed­eral Constitution.

Fur­ther; the spe­cific word­ing of the var­i­ous State’s Quo-​Warranto Statutes, usu­ally declares that “Any Per­son” may be sub­jected to this process. In Ore­gon the word­ing reads as:

ORS: 30.510: “An action at law may be main­tained in the name of the state, … or upon the rela­tion of a pri­vate party against the per­son offend­ing, in the fol­low­ing cases:

(1) When any per­son usurps, intrudes into, or unlaw­fully holds or exer­cises any pub­lic office, civil or mil­i­tary, or any fran­chise within this state, or any office in a cor­po­ra­tion either pub­lic or pri­vate, cre­ated or formed by or under the author­ity of this state; or,

(2) When any pub­lic offi­cer, civil or mil­i­tary, does or suf­fers an act which, by the pro­vi­sions of law, makes a for­fei­ture of the office of the pub­lic officer; …

This shows that “Law”; as derived from State-​Level Juris­dic­tions, & as shown here-​in by Ore­gon Cita­tions, does Com­mand that Fed­eral Public-​Servants who hold Offices with-​in the bound­aries of any State, may be Pros­e­cuted under that State’s Quo-​Warranto Laws for Crimes which any of the Peo­ple of that State has Solemnly Affirmed that those Fed­eral Offi­cers have com­mit­ted. Such Fed­eral Offi­cers are Not Exempt form these State-​level Quo-​Warranto Laws.

Fur­ther, & as shown above; these Accused Fed­eral Public-​Servants hold the “Bur­den of Proof” to con­vince the Jury, that they are Inno­cent of the Crimes Alleged against them. These are part of the Constitutionally-​Imposed “Duties” of All “Pub­lic Ser­vants”. The have No 5th Amend­ment “Right to Remain Silent”. They con­tracted that away, as one of their “Con­di­tions of Employ­ment” to ”We the Peo­ple”. This is “Pub­lic Law” & “Pub­lic Pol­icy”. It is solidly based on Logic & Rea­son. With-​out poli­cies in place such as this, there are effec­tively No Real Tools in the hands of “We the Peo­ple” for hold­ing these “Pub­lic Ser­vants” to Account­abil­ity; & Orga­nized Crime Syn­di­cates such as the “Maf­fia” may infil­trate & coerce their way into total despotic con­trol of the machin­ery of government.

And it appears that when Fed­eral Pub­lic Ser­vants are so accused of com­mit­ting Crimes with-​in any such State; that there is a “Fed­eral Inter­est” in the issues in ques­tion, & for this rea­son and numer­ous oth­ers yet un-​articulated; that Crim­i­nal Quo-​Warranto Com­plaints such as that in accom­pa­ni­ment here-​to can be Filed in Fed­eral Courts.


The ear­lier cita­tions clearly show that “We the Peo­ple” Are “The State”. That means that “We” can pro­ceed “State Ex Rel”, because of our “Rela­tion” to this “State”. The accused Cor­rupted Public-​Servants who are Named in the accom­pa­ny­ing com­plaint, are there-​in Sworn to be Reg­u­larly Admin­is­ter­ing Law­less & Aggres­sive Force against “We the Peo­ple” of this Nation & State. This is Sworn to be a “Pat­tern of Behav­ior”, as Rec­og­nized in State & Fed­eral Rack­e­teer­ing Statutes. Here-​under, these “Rogue Offi­cers” have Defied the “Law”. They are “Out­side” of the “Sphere” of the Law. They are “Out­law”. Those who Break such Law have “Gone to War with the Com­mu­nity”. Author­i­ta­tive cita­tions affirm this in the following:

“… the evi­dence which comes to us from Eng­land and else­where invites us to think of a time when law was week, and its weak­ness was dis­played by a ready recourse to out­lawry. … he who defied it was out­side its sphere; he was an out­law. He who breaks it has gone to war with the com­mu­nity; and the com­mu­nity goes to war with him. It is the right and duty of every man to pur­sue him, to rav­age his land, to burn his house, to hunt him down like a wild beast and slay him; for a wild beast he is; not merely is he a friend­less man, he is a wolf.

His­tory of Eng­lish Law; Fred­er­ick Pol­lock & Fred­eric Mait­land, (1899). Cam­bridge Uni­ver­sity Press, Vol­ume 2, Pages 449 & 450.

This cita­tion shows clearly that in times past, “Any” Law-​breaker was viewed as Being At “War with the Com­mu­nity”. “Law” was a most seri­ous & revered object, unlike seem­ingly today, with its insane num­ber of malum-​prohibitum based reg­u­la­tions, all designed to micro-​manage the lives of respon­si­ble adults. “Law” was then viewed as a Godly & Reli­gious Con­cern, not to be rou­tinely vio­lated by Licen­tious Licence of Rogue Public-​Officials; as seems now the com­mon prac­tice. It was “Over-​Arching Law”, under which the Monarch him-​self could be de-​throned & punished.

Here-​under, is shown that “War with the Com­mu­nity” is a Label which may law­fully be attached to All Law-​Breakers. And while this most seri­ous esca­la­tion of Judge­ment might be tem­pered by a conscience-​bound Jury, when exam­in­ing the pun­ish­ment appro­pri­ate for a hun­gry thief who stole a loaf of bread; yet when act­ing well-​paid Gov­ern­men­tal Exec­u­tive & Judi­cial Offi­cers are effec­tively Granted Licence to Con­spire to Mur­der & Kid­nap For-​Ever, then Hon­or­able Mem­bers of Our State & Nation’s Con­sti­tu­tional Bodies-​Politic con­sider it to be entirely Jus­ti­fied to describe these activ­i­ties as “War Against the Community”.

The present Mul­ti­tude of “Crimes Against the Peo­ple” which are set-​forth in the accom­pa­ny­ing Com­plaint, are greatly Sim­i­lar to that set forth in most States “Rack­e­teer­ing & Cor­rupt Orga­ni­za­tions” (RICO) Statutes. In Ore­gon this is done at ORS 166.715166.720. Here-​in; a “Pat­tern of … Activ­ity” is found to be the “Jus­ti­fi­ca­tion” for the Dras­tic Esca­la­tion of the Seri­ous­ness of the Charges. And we will Prove this “Pat­tern” At Trial. The “Pat­tern of Activ­ity” which has been set forth in the accom­pa­ny­ing com­plaint is there-​in Sworn to be sim­i­larly “Con­spir­a­to­r­ial” in its Nature.

Yet this “Pat­tern of Activ­ity” goes way Beyond the mere Eco­nomic Focus of the RICO Statutes. The Crimes Complained-​of in these doc­u­ments are alleg­ing Vio­lence & Constitutionally-​Subversive “Mal­ice afore-​thought”. What we see here is a “Pat­tern” of “Lawlessly-​Violent Activ­ity”. In this case; the con­cerns asso­ci­ated with the Rack­e­teer­ing Statutes, & their “Class A Felony” Penal­ties; are all “Insuf­fi­cient” to Ade­quately Address the Epi­demic Pro­por­tions of the Very Broad-​Based “Pat­tern of Law­lessly Vio­lent Activ­ity” alleged in the accom­pa­ny­ing com­plaint. This is much More Detri­men­tal to the Peace, Safety & Hap­pi­ness of “We the Peo­ple” who Com­pose this State’s “Body-​Politic”; than mere “Rack­e­teer­ing” concerns.

Because of this Mali­ciously & Con­spir­a­to­ri­ally Crim­i­nal Cir­cum­ven­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tional & Statu­tory Laws of this State & Nation by an Epi­demic of Cor­rup­tion amongst Cor­rupted Public-​Servants; here-​under, this all effec­tively amounts to a “State of War” against “We the Peo­ple” of this Nation & State. In the “Eyes of the Law”, as well as to Conscience-​Bound & “Rea­son­able Peo­ple” con­cerned here-​with; these acts in turn amount to what is rec­og­niz­able as: “Treason”.

The accom­pa­ny­ing complaining-​parties are con­fi­dent that at a Jury of such Conscience-​Bound & “Rea­son­able Peo­ple” as this, will promptly Con­vict the here-​in Accused of the Crimes set-​forth in the accom­pa­ny­ing Com­plaint. Here-​under, the pre­vi­ously ref­er­enced Racketeering-​Based “Pat­tern of Law­lessly Vio­lent Activ­ity” is more effec­tively termed a “Pat­tern of Trea­so­nous Activ­ity”.

The text com­posed here above should be Suf­fi­cient to Explain to “Rea­son­able Peo­ple” the “Basis in Law” for this Com­plaint, & for this court to assume juris­dic­tion over it.


Charles Bruce, Stewart;

This email address is being pro­tected from spam­bots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Be advised this is not directly related (ie: It is not “EX REL”) how­ever, it is quo-​warranto and is only here to show the basics for and rela­tion­ship to “ex rel” Com­plaints. Also be advised that it is five (5) and 1 half hours

Oral Argu­ments on Quo War­ranto Peti­tion against the Chief Jus­tice of the Philippines

{jcom­ments on}

Argentina’s Peo­ple Say No More!


Rich Man's World


Truth-Rated "R"

Cur­rent State


Wise Words