Court Appointed Assistance of Counsel in Marion County Circuit Court Case Nunber 10C41160,
Suzanne Taylor

Dear Assistance of Counsel:

At the outset, please understand that anyone consistently assaulted in his fundamental right to be free and to pursue happiness who finds himself being prosecuted for attempting recourse and then learns that his Court Appointed Counsel is colluding with the assailants, would be appropriate in using language far more colorful than my limited language skills permit me.  Therefore, I pray that you will not misconstrue an absence of perjorative terms to describe you and your conduct as an indication that a civil relationship exists between us.

I have now read the nine page incident report written and filed in the above numbered case by Oregon State Police Inspector, Eric Altman.  I have no desire to dignify it with a line by line analysis.  However, I will point out that the extent of the history recited by Inspector Altman did not begin with my alleged random acts of calling to curse those who have a duty to know what "TRAFFICKING" laws are all about. 

Herewith is evidence, and the means to obtain more evidence, that not only is my prosecution FRIVOLOUS, but that it is an attempt to punish me for my efforts to reveal an ORGANIZED CRIME RING operating under color of the Motor Vehicle Laws of Oregon.

First, I did defraud the Court in a prior Marion County prosecution by agreeing to plead "no contest" to one count of "seeking information from the state capitol" in exchange for which, the Court sent a letter to Chief Deputy Attorney General, Peter D. Shepherd asking for the Act of the Legislative Assembly wherein they made the Motor Vehicle Laws applicable to the general public.  Mr. Shepherd had previously written to say such a law did not exist (December 26th, 2003), so I was not surprised when Mr. Shepherd wrote back to the Court to confirm.  Fortunately, I was able to obtain and stash a copy of Mr. Shepherd's confirmation from the court file.  Check and see if, instead of an Act, as requested, there is still a two page Peter D. Shepherd opinion in the file.  If so, you will find on the second page of that opinion what is NOT relevant to the general public.  Now, I have burdened you with a culpable mental state.  Of course DDA, Amy Queen and her boss Walter Beglaw had the same culpable mental state as soon as Mr. Shepherd sent his opinion to the court, December 15, 2008, give a couple of days for the mail.

Here's the rest of the story that Inspector Altman failed to include in his report:  On February 20, 1997 DMV personnel date stamped a DEMAND for their authority to regulate the general public and their solely for personal use vehicles, such demand having been placed on their counter by yours truly.  I announced my intent to "revoke" all the paperwork that I had just purchased from the agency on the same date, if the authority demanded did not arrive in my post office box within thirty days.  I revoked the paper work and have since been subjected to many instances of theft of my vehicles, which included the tools of my trade, and bogus "trafficking" court appearances and so called "convictions" in the intervening years.  On one occasion I woke up after an unknown number of days in a hospital bed (in jail) subsequent to being beat and chemically maced for attempting to tell a jury the results of my ongoing investigation into the activities of the ORGANIZED CRIME RING.  After a period of time in excess of thirteen years and untold numbers of follow up contacts with DMV, ODOT, Governor's Office and the Legislature, the closest that I have gotten to the definitive answer to my February 20, 1997 question, is from Legislative Counsel, Dexter Johnson, when on August 18th, 2008, he wrote to say, "that law probably doesn't exist anywhere".  I should be imprisoned for failure to act on the evidence and arrest all those who assert or intimate to the contrary.

So dear counsel, here is your chance to set yourself apart from the obvious suspects:  Write to Tom McClellan of the DMV and tell him it is time to respond to your client's demand in regard to his agency's authority to regulate "the general public" who use their solely for personal use vehicles on the highway as a matter of right (ORS 801.305), in a similar, if not the same manner as "motor vehicle operators" who must have an appropriate grant of driving privilege (ORS 807.010).  You could cut to the chase and ask for the legislative session and the chapter of the session laws that authorizes the "Non-commercial license" DMV's "Oregon Driver Manual" advertises for sale on the first page. Tell him that when the public asks their public servants for their authority to act, it's not really a valid choice not to respond.  Tell him that as a bonus for handing over the authority, that your client, myself, will NEVER bother him or his personnel again.

And as for the inhabitants' Article I, Section 26 rights:  Before you move to DISMISS, why don't you check with Legislative Counsel, Dexter Johnson to see whether laws have been passed impairing them, and let me know.  Maybe we could prosecute Representative Mike McCracken posthumously for his "telephonic harassment" bill if Dexter says , "Yes, the people of Oregon have now passed a law prohibiting themselves from calling to curse their predatory public servants".

I also had a chance to read your motion to have me evaluated for capacity to aide and assist in my own defense, very interesting.

Please courtesy copy this to DA Walter Beglau and Judge Alan Norblad.

Remember ORS 1.025, "required", as in non-optional, is the operative term.

Richard L. Koenig
       

--