Dear Sheriff Myers:

I have been attempting to to bring racketeering activity to the attention of law enforcement for some time now and have finally been invited to court.  Unfortunately, the concerns I would have brought to the attention of District Attorney Walter Beglau have been side tracked by racketeering suspects who currently claim that the Oregon Constitution, that you swore to support, no longer includes protection of the inhabitants' rights listed at Article I, Section 26.

My concerns about RACKETEERING can be adequately summarized as follows:

ORS 801.245 describes "Driver license" in relevant portion as, "Driver license is a term which may be used interchangeably with the term license".

ORS 183.310(5) defines the interchangeable term as "... permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade occupation or profession".

"Page 1" of the "Oregon Driver Manual" (ODOT publication) features a "Non-commercial driver license", bold face print, blue background, that is for sale to an undefined "you".

These facts leave a reader with a question which must be resolved:  Should the law, as enacted by the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and encoded by the competent staff of Legislative Counsel's Office be considered the definitive word on what a license is, OR should an Executive Branch Agency, like ODOT and/or division of DMV (who have an inherent conflict of interest), be heeded as the ultimate authority on what a license is?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer asked that the definition of "Driver license" be amended "to mean the same as license" in his Senate Bill 118 of 1985.

Part of the answer lies in the Supreme Court decision in Cullen v Jones 79 Or 276-280.

Part of the answer lies in the Legislature's recently amended definition of "Highway", as such definition appears at ORS 801.305, highways are used by the general public for vehicles as a matter of RIGHT.

The ODOT suspects have accused me of calling them for accountability, although they characterize the calls as "harassing".  Most folks don't characterize the master calling servants to accountability as "harassment", but I suppose its all a matter of perspective.  If you're a criminal with a sweet little con job going and someone wants to poke their nose into your enterprise, I guess you might feel "harassed".

Extremely unusual circumstances have been unfolding in Marion County Circuit Court case # 10C41160.  A rational observer would have to conclude that either Article I, Section 26 of the Oregon Constitution has been repealed or that the racketeering suspects have managed to corrupt certain court personnel, to preclude them according due process of law to a victim, myself and the offenders, Matthew Garrett and associates.

Call to action:  Contact ODOT Director, Matthew Garrett, and ask him to send you copies of the proposed administrative rule, which was written to implement ORS 803.310 (filed with his Rule Coordinator and dated August 28, 2009) and his "Request for Action" thereon, directed to the Oregon Transportation Commissioners, dated October 19, 2009.  These documents evidence the motive for Matthew Garrett to have committed the crime of initiating a false report, as retribution against a whistle blower.      

When you begin to appreciate the magnitude of the enterprise, you should feel free to contact me at my address as appears below, as I will be able to guide an investigator through the voluminous record that has unfolded over the decades.

Please contact one of my informants, former Special Counsel to the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, acknowledged contributor to the current revision of the Vehicle
Code, now Multnomah County Circuit Court Senior Judge, Jerome Cooper, for a more adequate statement of my credentials.  I am in the process of obtaining the audio record of Judge Cooper's ruling that I "probably" know more about the motor vehicle laws of Oregon than anyone else, and having it transcribed.  I appeared in his court as an unrebutted expert witness on the limits of the vehicle code's application.

Would you please provide for my inspection, the act abolishing Article I, Section 26 of the Oregon Constitution, if that is what has happened?
-- .
Thanks for your attention, as the Ministerial Officer of the court.

Richard L. Koenig
P.O. Box 5755
Portland, Oregon [97228]

Please honor the jurisdiction in which I choose to live by addressing your reply as inscribed herein.