INFORMAL INTERROGATORY

INFORMAL INTERROGATORY

Mr. Peter D. Shepherd Certified U.S. Mail xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dba Assistant Attorney General

STATE OF OREGON

Department of Justice

1162 Court Street, N.E.

Salem 97301-4096

OREGON, USA

October 19, 2007 A.D.

Re: Administrative Records Request -- Oaths of Office Response letter dated 10/3/2007

Dear Mr. Shepherd:

I have received your letter dated October 16, 2007, responding to my Oregon FOIA Request dated October 3, 2007, for certain administrative records. I do appreciate your response and I would now like to address the following points:

My Oregon FOIA Request dated 10/3/2007 was addressed specifically to you, Mr. Shepherd (see attached); as such, you are obliged to disclose whether or not your office currently maintains custody of any of the OATHS OF OFFICE requested by my original Request addressed to you.

We have already submitted separate Oregon FOIA Requests to the Oregon Secretary of State, and they have already admitted that they do not have any of the OATHS OF OFFICE requested, despite being the designated legal custodian of those credentials (when they exist).

My Counsel has obtained a copy of your OATH OF OFFICE, and the OATHS OF OFFICE required of Messrs. Grant and Myers as well, from the very same Oregon Secretary of State. The latter disclosure leads me to infer that the routine practice of the Oregon Secretary of State is either: (1) to disclose such an OATH OF OFFICE when they do have custody of same, or (2) to admit that they do not have custody of same whenever such is the case.

By citing specific ORS sections in your letter dated 10/16/2007 re: "custodian of public records," you necessarily imply that: (1) the Oregon Secretary of State is the designated legal custodian of the OATHS OF OFFICE requested by my original Request to you, and (2) those OATHS OF OFFICE would be considered "public records" if they did exist and if they were in the custody of the Oregon Secretary of State. We do believe these are reasonable and correct implications to draw from your letter.

If the latter implications are NOT correct, please confirm the correct implications which I should draw from those specific ORS sections, and do so within the next fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will activate legal estoppel on this point. See Carmine v. Bowen for a holding with which I believe you are or should be quite familiar (i.e. “silence activates estoppel”).

Your letter of 10/16/2007 also admits, in writing transmitted via U.S. Mail, that "there are no public records in the Secretary of State's custody that are responsive" to my Request. I also infer from the latter admission, and from all the above, that no such OATHS OF OFFICE exist and that no such OATHS OF OFFICE have ever been executed by any of the sixty-five (65) OAH personnel currently claiming to be Administrative Law Judges ("ALJs").

Again, if the latter inference is NOT correct, please confirm the correct inference I should draw from those specific ORS sections, and do so within the next fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will again activate legal estoppel on this latter point, per Carmine v. Bowen supra.

I hereby contest your conclusion that my petition is "moot" because the issue at hand has yet to reach final judgment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction over this question e.g. jury verdict, injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate judicial remedy.

Perhaps of greatest significance in this matter, by citing "Public Records Order, March 31, 2005 Doughton (denying as moot a petition seeking non-existent records)" [sic] you also give me good reason to infer that the OATHS OF OFFICE in question are likewise "non-existent records" (your exact words).

Once again, if the latter inference is NOT correct, please confirm the correct inference which I should draw from those specific ORS sections, and do so within fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will once again activate legal estoppel on this latter point, per Carmine v. Bowen supra.

Based on all the above, and on letters from Mr. Halpert and Ms. Fair who are both current employees of OAH, I am concluding that all “STATE OF OREGON” ALJs are operating and doing business without proper OATHS OF OFFICE in violations of 4 U.S.C. 101 and of Article VI, Clause 3 in the Constitution for the United States of America as lawfully amended. See Dyett v. Turner and State v. Phillips.

All judges, whether de jure or in this case de facto, are required to have proper OATHS OF OFFICE. See French v. State, 572 S.W.2d 934; and Brown v. State, 238 S.W.2d 787 (“Without taking the oath prescribed by law, one cannot become a judge either de jure or de facto, and such an individual is without authority to act and his acts as such are void until he has taken the prescribed oath.”)

Please confirm the correct implication which I should draw from these violations, and do so within the next fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will once again activate legal estoppel on this latter point, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen supra.

Messrs. Grant, Myers and Halpert, Ms. Fair, you, OAH and ODOR are all fully aware that there can be no due process of Law -- as required by Law -- whenever “judges” do not have a proper OATH OF OFFICE, and yet all of these personnel continue to assert some colorable de facto authority, even after they have effectively admitted, in writing transmitted via U.S. Mail, that the requisite credentials do not exist.

My due process Rights and ESA’s due process rights have therefore been infringed in violation of the federal criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 (felony and misdemeanor, respectively), because the Oath of Office and Supremacy Clauses in the U.S. Constitution guarantee my fundamental Right to Oregon State officers who have all executed a proper OATH OF OFFICE. See also 4 U.S.C. 101, likewise elevated to supreme Law of the Land throughout Oregon State, notwithstanding anything to the contrary that may exist in the (2) Constitutions and Laws of Oregon and of THE STATE OF OREGON.

If you believe I am incorrect about any of these implications, please confirm the correct implications which I should draw from these violations, and do so within fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will once again activate legal estoppel on this latter point, pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen supra.

Since you, Messrs. Grant and Myers are all working for the Oregon Department of Justice, you are or should be fully aware that any claim of authority by an “officer,” acting either de jure or de facto but without a proper OATH OF OFFICE, implicates that individual in several federal felonies, and you are or should also be aware that I am required to report same by the federal criminal statute at 18 U.S.C. 4. For your information, I have already fulfilled my legal obligation in this regard. See 18 U.S.C. 1341-1342.

18 U.S.C. 4 -- Misprision of Felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. See felony under 18 U.S.C. 3559.

Please confirm the correct implication I should draw from these violations, and do so within fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will once again activate legal estoppel on this latter point, per Carmine v. Bowen supra.

Since you, Messrs. Grant and Myers, Halpert, Wehrlie, Fair, OAH and ODOR are fully aware that OAH is presently operating under contract with ODOR, as evidenced by Mr. Halpert’s letters, then you are or should also be fully aware that all OAH judges are paid by ODOR and not the de jure State of Oregon. Therefore there can be no due process of Law because of this blatant conflict of interest.

In fact, OAH, OAS, ODOR and DOJ are all private for profit companies, masquerading as part of the de jure State of Oregon i.e. one of the fifty (50) de jure States of the Union. In point of fact, all the above are operating as de facto corporations and listed as such in Dunn and Bradstreet’s commercial database!

Please confirm the correct implications I should draw from these violations, and do so within fifteen (15) calendar days. Beyond that reasonable deadline, your silence will once again activate legal estoppel on this latter point, per Carmine v. Bowen supra.

Specifically, unless I receive further factual clarifications from you in writing within the next fifteen (15) calendar days, I will conclude that my understanding of everything documented in this letter is true and correct.

Thank you for your continuing professional cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Chester E. Davis, Sui Juris

U.S. Mail:

Chester E. Davis

c/o P.O. Box 2176

Clackamas 97015

OREGON, USA

Attachments

Copy: Private Attorney General, 18 USC 1964(a), Rotella v. Wood