THE BIG LIE

What conditions must be met in order for a government to infringe upon constitutional rights?
A compelling state interest, proven by a preponderance of clear and convincing evidence.

Compelling: 1. not able to be resisted; overwhelming. 2. not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction.
Proven: 1. demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
Preponderance: 1. the quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance.
Clear: 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. 2. leaving no doubt; obvious or unambiguous. 3. having or feeling no doubt or confusion.
Convincing: 1. capable of causing someone to believe that something is true or real. 2. leaving no margin of doubt; clear.
Evidence: 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. 2. information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court.

Can that infringement take place without Due Process?
No.

No: 1. not any. 2. used to indicate that something is quite the opposite of what is being specified. 3. used in notices or slogans forbidding or rejecting something specified.
Infringement: 1. the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation. 2. the action of limiting or undermining something.
Due: 1. a person's right; what is owed to someone. 2. expected at or planned for at a certain time.
Process: 1. a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. 2. a natural or involuntary series of changes.

Can legislators create a law that interferes with a right secured by the constitution when the constitution says "no law shall in any case whatever control... or interfere with the RIGHTS of CONSCIENCE"?(Oregon Const. Article 1 Section 3, a natural, inalienable right: No one can force you to believe lies, deceit, immorality, or unethical dishonest behavior as right, true, honest, moral, or ethical. That is contradictory to truth/facts/evidence.)
Not without violating their Obligation of Good Faith, the Constitution, Due Process, or lying.

No: 1. not any. 2. used to indicate that something is quite the opposite of what is being specified. 3. used in notices or slogans forbidding or rejecting something specified.
Law: 1. statutory law and the common law.
Shall: 1. expressing the future tense. 2. expressing an instruction or command.
Any: 1. used to express a lack of restriction in selecting one of a specified class. 2. used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many. 3. at all; in some degree (used for emphasis). 4. one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.
Case: 1. an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. 2. the situation affecting or relating to a particular person or thing; one's circumstances or position. 3. a set of facts or arguments supporting one side in a legal action. 4. a set of facts or arguments supporting one side of a debate or controversy. 5. any of the inflected forms of a noun, adjective, or pronoun that express the semantic relation of the word to other words in the sentence.
Whatever: 1. used to emphasize a lack of restriction in referring to any thing or amount, no matter what. 2. regardless of what. 3. at all; of any kind (used for emphasis). 4. no matter what happens.
Control: 1. the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events. 2. the power to restrain something, especially one's own emotions or actions. 3. determine the behavior or supervise the running of. 4. maintain influence or authority over.
Interfere: 1. take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity. 2. prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly. 3. LAW: attempt to bribe or intimidate (a witness).
Conscience: 1. an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. 2. the ability to distinguish between right(truth) and wrong(lies/deceit).

Does an "emergency" situation fall within the bounds of "in any case whatever"?
Yes. "Any case whatever" is an all inclusive term, leaving no room for exception.

Any: 1. used to express a lack of restriction in selecting one of a specified class. 2. used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many. 3. at all; in some degree (used for emphasis). 4. one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.
Case: 1. an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. 2. the situation affecting or relating to a particular person or thing; one's circumstances or position. 3. a set of facts or arguments supporting one side in a legal action. 4. a set of facts or arguments supporting one side of a debate or controversy. 5. any of the inflected forms of a noun, adjective, or pronoun that express the semantic relation of the word to other words in the sentence.
Whatever: 1. used to emphasize a lack of restriction in referring to any thing or amount, no matter what. 2. regardless of what. 3. at all; of any kind (used for emphasis). 4. no matter what happens.
Emergency: 1. an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action. 2. a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

Is COVID-19 an "emergency case" according to the definitions of "emergency" and "case" included in the parameters of "whatever"?
Yes, COVID is an example of something occurring, a "particular situation", an "unforseen combination of circumstances" claimed to be "a serious, unexpected and dangerous situation requiring immediate action" and is such due to the factual definition of "whatever" defining "regardless of what", the "what[ever]" being the "emergency case" of COVID-19. At least this is what is claimed.

In the "case" of public health emergencies, like COVID-19, or in the case of legislature considering, writing, and passing laws to prepare for a public health emergency, known as public health laws- Can legislators, Attorney's, Sheriff's, Judge's, Governors, or anyone else in the government use such legislation or exercise of powers to deny to anyone their inalienable natural rights, of which specifically say "no law shall in any case whatever control or interfere"?(see definitions above)
Not according to the factual definitions of the words they used in constructing the Constitution and the laws following. Including the Public Health Laws, which are constitutional, albeit completely abused currently.

Are there any statutory laws that reflect Article 1 Section 3 Oregon Constitution?
Yes there are, in the construction of the statutes chapter, ORS 174, the statute ORS 174.030 clearly indicates that the "natural rights" always prevail, such as Article 1 Section 3(and others). 174.030 applies to the construction of all statutes before they are passed, therefore any statutes following must be compliant, as the Constitution itself dictates. Taking 174.030 into consideration, and ORS 431.180 which dictates that ANY / ALL interference with the natural right to religious beliefs SHALL BE PROHIBITED by not only ALL public health laws, but Oregon Health Authority directly, and ANYONE acting in agency of OHA. Oregon Administrative Rules(OAR) 943-005-0010 is also the Administrative rules that demands OHA respect the INDIVIDUAL religious beliefs, while STILL providing full and equal access to services. And in ORS 431a.005 "Definitions", the statute clearly includes "rules and orders" in the definition of "public health laws", meaning that not only are the Governors EO's in violation of the Constitution and Laws, but also directly in violation of the very health laws and rules cited for the authority to deprive the religious beliefs and RIGHT OF CONSCIENCE.

Natural: 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. 2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something. 3. (of a skill, quality, or ability) coming instinctively to a person; innate. 4. (of law or justice) based on innate moral sense; instinctively felt to be right and fair.
Rights: 1. that which is morally correct, just, or honorable. 2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. 3. the authority to perform
Conscience: 1. an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. 2. the ability to distinguish between right(truth) and wrong(lies/deceit). (Opposite: unconscionable: not right or reasonable.)
Wrong: 1. not correct or true; incorrect. 2. unjust, dishonest, or immoral. 3. a breach, by commission or omission, of one's legal duty.
4. an invasion of right to the damage or prejudice of another. 5. act unjustly or dishonestly toward.
Act: 1. take action; do something. 2. behave in the way specified.
Perform: 1. carry out, accomplish, or fulfill (an action, task, or function). 2. work, function, or do something to a specified standard.
Duty: 1. a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. 2. a task or action that someone is required to perform.
Obligation: 1. an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. 2. the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something. 3. a binding agreement committing a person to a payment or other action.
Required: 1. officially compulsory, or otherwise considered essential; indispensable.
Moral: 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Ethical: 1. morally good or correct. 2. relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. 3. avoiding activities or organizations that do harm to people or the environment.
Principles: 1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. 2. a rule or belief governing one's personal behavior. 3. morally correct behavior and attitudes.

§2. Principals

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

§3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

§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.

Whoever: 1. the person or people who; any person who. 2. regardless of who.
Regardless: 1. without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances. 2. without regard or consideration for.
Despite: 1. without being affected by; in spite of.
Prevailing: 1. existing at a particular time; current. 2. having most appeal or influence; prevalent.
Circumstances: 1. a fact or condition connected with or relevant to an event or action. 2. an event or fact that causes or helps to cause something to happen, typically something undesirable.(COVID EMERGENCY = CIRCUMSTANCES [CASES])

ORS 431.180: Public health and safety: State and Local Administration and Enforcement of Public Health Laws
(1)Nothing in ORS 431.001 (Findings) to 431.550 (Power of Oregon Health Authority to collect information from local public health administrators) and 431.990 (Penalties) or any other public health law of this state shall be construed as authorizing the Oregon Health Authority or its representatives, or any local public health authority or its representatives, to interfere in any manner with an individual’s right to select the physician, physician assistant, naturopathic physician or nurse practitioner of the individual’s choice or the individual’s choice of mode of treatment, nor as interfering with the practice of a person whose religion treats or administers sick or suffering people by purely spiritual means.

OAR 943-005-0010: Oregon Health Authority: Individual Rights: Non-Discrimination Policy
(12)The Authority shall comply with the following statutes and regulations:
(b)The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, prohibiting discrimination in the delivery of services based on race, color, national origin, religion, or sex (42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c) (1)), and the DOJ implementing regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 42, Subpart D.

(k)Oregon Revised Statute 659A.403 (Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited), prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

(l)Oregon Revised Statute 659A.103 (Policy), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.

(m)All other applicable state or federal laws.
Shall: 1. expressing the future tense. 2. expressing an instruction or command.
Discrimination: 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, religion, or sex.

ORS 431a.005: Public health and safety: Public Health Programs and Activities
(8)“Public health law” means any statute, rule or local ordinance that has the purpose of promoting or protecting the public health and that establishes the authority of the Oregon Health Authority, the Public Health Director, the Public Health Officer, a local public health authority or local public health administrator to enforce the statute, rule or local ordinance.

Religion: 1. a particular system of faith and worship.(right, morals, ethics, facts, evidence: not based on deceit or injurious to others) 2. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.(like the truth)
Conscience: 1. an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. 2. the ability to distinguish between right(truth) and wrong(lies/deceit).
Belief: 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 2. something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

ORS 431a.015: Public health and safety: Public Health Programs and Activities
(2)The Public Health Director, after making the determinations required under subsection (1) of this section, may take the following public health actions:
(d)Require a person to obtain treatment and use appropriate prophylactic measures to prevent the introduction or spread of a communicable disease or reportable disease, unless:

(A)The person has a medical diagnosis for which a vaccination is contraindicated; or

(B)The person has a religious or conscientious objection to the required treatments or prophylactic measures.(This is Art 1 Sec 3 / 174.030 / 431.180 in operation)

Unless: 1. except if (used to introduce the case in which a statement being made is not true or valid).
Religious: 1. (of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's thought about or worship of a divine being. 2. relating to or believing in a religion.
Conscientious: 1. (of a person) wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly. 2. relating to a person's conscience.
Conscience: 1. an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. 2. the ability to distinguish between right(truth) and wrong(lies/deceit).

No person or agency of the state can lawfully demand you accept lies as truth, according to all of the definitions and laws prohibiting deceit, interference and deprivation of RELIGIOUS/CONSCIENTIOUS(CONSCIENCE) rights, and those being specifically listed as a "protected class" which is irrelevant regardless since it is also a "natural inalienable right". Considering no person/agent/agency can demand that you believe, and react to lies being passed as truth without committing Coercion(failure or refusal) of duties to be honest, moral, and ethical in ALL conduct as a public official, law enforcement, sheriff, attorney, or judge, means that no person, or combination(conspiracy by) of persons can interfere, deprive or extort your rights, even in an emergency, and never based on fraud(lies, deceit, dishonesty, immorality, unethical acts).
(See links at top of page.)

The taking by a state[Dierdre/EPD by declared agency of: Oregon: Governor Brown, OHA Dir. Pat Allen, Chief Justice Walters] of the private property(natural rights are intangible property: see "Extortion") of one person[Me, Amy etc] or corporation, without the owner's consent, for the private use of another[Dierdre/EPD: intangible Property: Rights, time, liberty | Tangible Property: person, money], is not due process of law, and is a violation of the fourteenth article of amendment of the constitution of the United States.
- in Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 1896

ORS 164.005: Offenses Against Property: Definitions
(1)“Appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person” or “appropriate” means to:[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution]
(a)Exercise control over property of another, or to aid a third person to exercise control over property of another, permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances as to acquire the major portion of the economic value or benefit of such property;[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution] or
(b)Dispose of the property of another for the benefit of oneself or a third person.[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution][Benefit to Dierdre/Eugene Police]

(2)“Deprive another of property” or “deprive” means to:[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution]
(a)Withhold property of another or cause property of another to be withheld from that person permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to that person;[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution]
or
(b)Dispose of the property in such manner or under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such property.[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution + conviction]
(3)“Obtain” includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest therein, whether to the obtainer or another.[False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution]
(4)“Owner of property taken, obtained or withheld” or “owner” means any person who has a right to possession thereof superior to that of the taker, obtainer or withholder.[State Agency absent Due Process]
(5)“Property” means any article, substance or thing of value, including, but not limited to, money, tangible and intangible personal property, real property, choses-in-action, evidence of debt or of contract.[Right of Religion / Conscience is a Natural, Inalienable Right: Intangible Personal Property]

ORS 164.075: Offenses Against Property: Extortion
(1)A person[Dierdre/EPD] commits the crime of extortion when the person[Dierdre/EPD] compels or induces another person[Me/Amy] to either deliver property[right of conscience: refusal to participate in lies/deceit] or services[the act of putting a mask on that provides no efficacy, only " emotional comfort" to those demanding] to the person[Dierdre/EPD] or to a third person[Dierdre/EPD], or refrain from reporting unlawful conduct to a law enforcement agency, by instilling in the other person[Me/Amy] a fear that, if the property or services are not so delivered or if the unlawful conduct is reported, the actor[Dierdre] or a third person[EPD] will in the future:

(a)Unlawfully cause physical injury to some person;[Dierdre threatening and attempting assault with a deadly weapon: baseball bat]

(b)Unlawfully cause damage to property;

(c)Engage in other conduct constituting a crime;[If you don't put a mask on, you can't come in here(false trespass)]

(d)Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against the person;[Calling Police to trespass someone exercising their rights]

(g)Testify falsely or provide false information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another’s legal claim or defense;[omitting facts from charging information that change the direction of prosecution] or

(h)Unlawfully[contradictory to law] use or abuse the position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person[Amy, Me, Adam, Devin, Mindy, Countless others] adversely. [Eugene Police Department: Failure and Refusal at Eugene Municipal Courthouse, followed by False arrest, kidnapping, coercion, extortion, in violation of law, constitution, Code of Ethics, Policy, training, and duties.]

(2)Extortion is a Class B felony.

Lane County, Oregon - Where Eugene Police Department is located.
https://p1cdn4static.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3585797/File/Government/BCC/2021/2021_AGENDAS/110221agenda/T.5.A.pdf
"Taken together, these civil rights laws prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from DOJ from discriminating in services and employment because of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, sex, and, for grants authorized under the Violence Against Women Act, sexual orientation and gender identity. Recipients are also prohibited from discriminating in services because of age. For a complete review of these civil rights laws and nondiscrimination requirements, in connection with DOJ awards, see:" https://ojp.gov/funding/Explore/LegalOverview/CivilRightsRequirements.htm

Proof of federal funding for the county thereby subjecting them to federal Commerce Clause laws, Omnibus Crime Control Act, and obliging them to comply with ALL non-discrimination laws GUARANTEEING full and equal access to services and programs.[such as equal service from the police, protecting our rights, not ignoring them until they can pathetically claim they're protecting someone else, who we were reporting and who assaulted us, and we defended against, for exercising our right not to participate in or encourage fraud, deceit, or corruption that the Police failed and refused to protect/acknowledge] You don't get to ignore natural rights, then aid and abet the denial of service by bias of conscience(demanding we believe fraudulent, incorrect, and misleading information ie: lies) and act according to the deceit, followed by an assault attempt, then turn around and truthfully and factually say you did your job honestly, ethically, morally, lawfully, or correctly. That means you either failed, or refused, to do your duties according to your obligation of good faith, in your position of Public Trust to the Constitution, Criminal Justice Code of Ethics, Training Manual, Policy, and Law, as well as failing or refusing to apply case law so as to avoid liability. Your signature on each of the aforementioned documents indicates you received, read, and agreed to the conditions stated therein, such as not only obeying the law, but enforcing it, the opposite of which is Proscribed by ORS 163.275h(Coercion), 164.075h(Extortion), 181A.410(Minimum Qualification Standards: police), 181A.125(interference prohibited), 131.602(prohibited conduct), 162.405(Official Misconduct), and OAR 259-008-0300(Grounds for Disqualification: police). Failing or Refusing to do your duties as a public servant, is Coercion, a Class C Felony.
(h)Unlawfully[contradictory to law] use or abuse the position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to official duties, or by failing or refusing(omitting) to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person[Amy, Me, Adam, Devin, Mindy, Countless others] adversely. [Eugene Police Department: Failure and Refusal at Eugene Municipal Courthouse, followed by False arrest, kidnapping, coercion, extortion, in violation of law, constitution, Code of Ethics, Policy, training, and duties.]

ORS 161.085: Definitions with respect to culpability
(1)“Act” means a bodily movement.

(2)“Voluntary act” means a bodily movement performed consciously and includes the conscious possession or control of property.

(3)“Omission” means a failure to perform an act the performance of which is required by law.

(4)“Conduct” means an act or omission and its accompanying mental state.

(5)“To act” means either to perform an act or to omit to perform an act.

(6)“Culpable mental state” means intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence as these terms are defined in subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10) of this section.

(7)“Intentionally” or “with intent,” when used with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with a conscious objective to cause the result or to engage in the conduct so described.

(8)“Knowingly” or “with knowledge,” when used with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described or that a circumstance so described exists.[Awareness established by: Code of Ethics: honest, moral, ethical, obey laws, uphold laws | Training Manual: Notice/knowledge of every crime involved currently, law, and case law application requirements | Laws covered in TM: Coercion, Extortion, Trespassing, Bias Crimes, Harassment, Robbery, Assault etc | State/Federal Constitutions: Religious Liberty by Right of Conscience, Free Speech, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Equal Protection, Due Process, No Involuntary Servitude | Policy Manual: Code of Ethics again, Standards of Conduct, Non-Discrimination policy(required by law in all employer-policy documents), duties | Critical and Essential Tasks and Functions(DPSST): Understand and apply Law and Case Law, Accurate honest and complete report writing(no omissions of facts to justify your otherwise unlawful actions)]

(9)“Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.[see (6)“Culpable mental state” ]

(10)“Criminal negligence” or “criminally negligent,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.[see (6)“Culpable mental state” ]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE CODE OF ETHICS:

AS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve humankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect all persons against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all people to liberty, equality and justice.

I WILL keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity, will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I WILL never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. Without compromise and with relentlessness, I will uphold the laws affecting the duties of my profession courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence, and never accepting gratuities.

I RECOGNIZE my position as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it, as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of The Criminal Justice System. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession.
I swear before God to the above.
I affirm to the above.


RULE 8.3 REPORTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT:
(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the Oregon State Bar Client Assistance Office.
(b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority

RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT (a) It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(1) violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(2) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;
(4) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; or
(5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate these Rules or other law, or
(6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.
(7) in the course of representing a client, knowingly intimidate or harass[like declaring that you will not defend us by law, RPC and the constitutions, or refusing to say the words "public accommodation" and "religion" in our defense] a person because of that person’s race, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, or disability.


List of "STATE AGENCIES": (NONE OF WHICH CAN DEPRIVE YOUR RIGHTS)
https://www.oregon.gov/pages/agencies.aspx (list of agency links)
https://www.oregon.gov/gov (Governors Office: State Agency)
https://www.oregon.gov/oha (Oregon Health Authority: State Agency)
http://www.ohsu.edu/ (Oregon Health and Science University: State Agency)
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/hpa/hp (Office of Health Policy: State Agency)
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/hlo (Health Licensing Office: State Agency)
https://www.oregon.gov/dhs (Department of Human Services: State Agency)
https://www.doj.state.or.us/ (Department of Justice Oregon: State Agency)
https://courts.oregon.gov/ (Oregon Judicial Department: State Agency)
https://www.oregon.gov/boli (Bureau of Labor Industries: State Agency)
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/ (Oregon State Legislature: State Agency)
https://www.oregon.gov/omd (Military Department Oregon: Oh look, still a "state agency")
https://www.oregon.gov/osp (Oregon State Police: Executive Department: State Agency)
[ORS 181a.125: No member of the state police shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person, except for the prevention of crime(cannot criminalize RIGHTS), or the capture or arrest of persons committing crimes.]
http://www.courts.oregon.gov/supreme/Pages/index.aspx (Oregon Supreme Court: State Agency)

"But it should go without saying that the vitality of... constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them." - in Freeman v. Gregoire, 2011

The controlling legal principles are plain. The command of the Fourteenth Amendment is that no "State" shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, . . . denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning." Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347. Thus the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action, see Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S. 230; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; or whatever the guise in which it is taken, see Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F. 2d 922; Department of Conservation and Development v. Tate, 231 F. 2d 615. In short, the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color(religion/conscience in this case) declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted "ingeniously or ingenuously." Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 132.

No state legislator(politician) or executive(Governor, OHA Director, Adj. Gen National Guard, Sheriff, Police) or judicial officer(Judge, Prosecutor, Attorney) can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes, in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 397-398.

https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol62/iss1/5
II. RICO AND THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
The federal government's authority to bring prosecutions under RICO is predicated on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In order to inquire into the constitutionality of these prosecutions, it is useful to examine the origin and elements of the statute as well as the Commerce Clause doctrine that frames its proper limits.

The substantive RICO criminal statute is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). It provides:
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.

Robert R. Bebermeyer, Public Acomodations and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 19 U. Miami L. Rev. 456 (1965)
A. Constitutional Basis
Although the past ninety years have reflected changing racial views in this country, the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 realized that constitutional basis for the Act must be predicated upon a more effective power source than the fourteenth amendment and Congress' power to implement its provisions. Congress, therefore, based the 1964 Act on the Interstate Commerce Clause[RICO] and attendant Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, as well as its power to implement the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. Its own provisions reflect the constitutional basis for the Act: Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action .... (Emphasis added.) The Act defines and delineates which types of "operations affect commerce." "[A]ny inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment" [affects commerce if it] "provides lodging to transient guests. ' "[A] ny restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises" affects commerce if "it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves ...has moved in commerce."[Crumb Together | Twitter]"[A]ny motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment" affects commerce if "it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibition, or other sources of entertainment which move in com merce . . . ' Commerce' means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States .... ,,The Act also delineates when discrimination or segregation is supported by state action: Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of statute[ORS 176.795, 431a.015, 401.165-175], ordinance or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof[OHA, Office of the Governor, OHSU, Oregon State Police, OJD, ORDOJ, Dept of Ed: see links re:"State Agency"]. Turning to the arguments relating to the constitutional bases, the courts have, on various occasions, invoked the commerce clause and the Interstate Commerce Act to prohibit acts of racial discrimination against persons moving in interstate commerce. It should be noted, however, that in these cases there was a state statute requiring separation of the races or racial discrimination on interstate carriers. " These state statutes have been invalidated as imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce. The "commerce clause approach" in conjunction with Congressional testimony indicating that private discrimination had resulted in impairment of the interstate movement of Negroes, apparently influenced the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the inclusion of establishments which do not serve transient guests but who serve food or sell a product, "a substantial portion of ... which ... has moved in commerce' would seem to be on a less substantial constitutional footing. Not all jurists agree with the "commerce clause approach" as the proper basis for the Civil Rights Act, as indicated by the views of Justice Simpson of the Alabama Supreme Court: [T]he administration's bill places primary reliance upon the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The theory here is that acts of private discrimination substantially affect the flow of commerce, and because the Constitution vests in Congress a power to regulate commerce among the several States, the Congress has power to prohibit such acts of private discrimination. Many fine constitutional lawyers disagree entirely with this far-fetched construction of the Commerce Clause .... In regard to discrimination or segregation supported by state action, no great constitutional impediment arises. The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted to apply to "state action," and numerous decisions essentially cover the three specific references to requisite state action in the Act.

B. Analysis of Title II
Section 201(a) states the purpose of Title II which is the heart of the public accommodations portion of the Act:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion or national origin. (Emphasis added.)

An analysis of the public accommodations sections of the act necessitates determining the applicability of the Act to the various types of public accommodations.

2. ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH PROVIDE FOOD[Crumb Together | Twitter]
"[A]ny restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises"' is within the provisions of the Act if the business' operations affect commerce. Any one of the above mentioned businesses are said to affect commerce if "it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves . . . has moved in [interstate] commerce ... The preceding section of the Act also includes food facilities which are "located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station." These retail establishments or gasoline stations "affect commerce" if "a substantial portion of the .. .gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce." Thus, the service of food on the premises of gasoline stations or retail establishments, such as department stores, can be brought under the Act, even though they do not serve transients and buy all their food locally. The only requirement for application of the Act to these establishments is the requisite movement of a "substantial portion" of gasoline or products which they sell in commerce.

Criminal Resource Manual:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-109-rico-charges
When a RICO action is brought before continuity can be established, then liability depends on whether the threat of continuity is demonstrated. Id. However, Judge Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion that it would be absurd to say that "at least a few months of racketeering activity. . .is generally for free, as far as RICO is concerned." Id. at 254, 109 S. Ct. at 2908. Therefore, if the predicate acts involve a distinct threat of long-term racketeering activity, either implicit or explicit, a RICO pattern is established. Id. at 242, 109 S. Ct. at 2902.

The RICO statute expressly states that it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the subsections of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962. The government need not prove that the defendant agreed with every other conspirator, knew all of the other conspirators, or had full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. Delano, 825 F. Supp. at 542. All that must be shown is: (1) that the defendant agreed to commit the substantive racketeering offense through agreeing to participate in two racketeering acts; (2) that he knew the general status of the conspiracy; and (3) that he knew the conspiracy extended beyond his individual role. United States v. Rastelli, 870 F. 2d 822, 828 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 982, 110 S. Ct. 515, 107 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1989).