QUESTION No. 1:
Did the Ore. State Bar and the Ore.
Supreme
Court's
Chief
Justice's approved adoption of the
Bar
American
Association's
Model Rules of, Professional
Corduct
rule 1. 13 (0),
Organization As Client
and (b),
tiled
abridae
Oreqonians
quaranteed
and absolute fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel
for fther defense during adversary criminal and direct appeal
State
proceeding's
~
the
of
in

QUESTION No. 2:
Did member's of the Ore. State gov. pol. "organization's" public
act's of
double
jeopardy?

QUESTION
No. 3:
public
his quararteed
and
absolute fundamental right to enjoy a plblic
trial by an impartal
jury by
puy Suxiy-hunt Burypod -hin to stoo u
attainder

QUESTION
No. 4:
Are member's of the Ore.,
State
Organization's public
gov. poi.
Americas basic
body secretly destroying
the basic
tenet of
democratic sdciety which is that a person is presumed innocent
guitty by secretly changing
and should not be
purished vrtil proven
both the burden of proof and standard
of proof in adversary
criminal matter's from proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a faur

QUESTION No. 5:
Did both the. Judge, Lesle M. Roberts, prosecutor, Kirsten M.
authority over subject - matter concerning the
issve of whether or
deadly and dangerous firearm Wille Ubhnson possessed dve to
the double
Constiturtion
I

Whether the Oregon State Bar and the Oregon Supreme Court's Chief Justice's approved adoption of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.13(a), and (b), titled 'Organization As Client' abridged Oregonians' accused of crime, such as petitioner Willie Johnson's, guaranteed and absolute fundamental right to the effective assistance of counsel for their legal defense during adversary criminal and direct appeal proceedings in the State of Oregon?