William Thomas P.O. Box 27217 Washington, D.C. 20038 Carlton S. Clark Director of Admissions CUNY Law School at Queen's College 65-21 Main Street Flushing, New York 11306 February 3, 1990 Dear Sir: This letter is to recommend that Jackson Leeds be admitted to the legal studies program at CUNY. The sum of my education is experience tempered -- as objec- tively as possible -- by independent study. I presume that the fruit of free thought and expression is peace through reason. As an alternative to peace through reason I can only see the rule of "right" as dictated by might. See, Attachment 1, pg. 2. In pursuit of peace through reason, since June 3, 1981 I have attempted to maintain a continuous presence in front of the White House in Washington, D.C. Because of certain reactions to my activities in front of the White House I have been drawn into a number of court proceedings, See, e.g., Thomas v United States, 557 A.2d 1296, 1297 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1989); United States v. Picciotto, 875 F.2d 345 (DDC 1989); Thomas, et. al. v. United States, et. al., 696 F. Supp 702, 704 (DDC 1988); Thomas et. al. v. News World Communications, et. al., 681 F. Supp. 55, 59 (DDC 1988); United States v. Thomas, 864 F.2d 188, 199 (DDC 1988); United States v. Sunrise, 702 F. Supp. 295, 299 (DDC 1988). In each of the aforementioned cases, and others, I have either conducted the entire litigation pro se, or worked with an attorney in all phases of the case. I'd like to consider Thomas cases (681 F. Supp. 55; 696 F. Supp. 702) a draw (id. 714), and pray we are progressing with Huddle et. al. v. Reagan, et. al. USDC CA. No. 88-3130. See, Attachment 2. Observations have led me to the working hypothesis that individual liberty depends on personal willingness to press for an accounting when the numbers don't seem to add up. See, Attachment 3. Upon these premises I have encouraged others to familiarize themselves with the law and tried to assist them in utilizing the judical mechanism as an accounting machine. E.g., Attachment 4. I met Mr. Leeds in the summer of 1988. Because he was actively pursuing public access to information, a topic of broad democratic concern, Jackson was of interest to me. Essentially our relationship has centered around several pro se lawsuits which Mr. Leeds instigated in the areas of patent law and Freedom of Inforamtion. I have given him some assistance in this endeavour by serving papers and trying to act as a sounding board. Briefly Jackson's cases concern the indexing of patent-trademark decisions. as defined under Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations. He feels that government bureaucracies are powerful engines, and that people have an interest in ensuring that those engines are strictly governed. When he was unable to find certain indecises at the Patent-Trademark Office, Jackson took it upon himself to encourage the agency to abide by its own rules. On one occasion I accompanied Mr. Leeds to the Patent-Trademark Office, where he was bound to check whether the agency had compiled the missing indecises, as required under 36 CFR 10157. He spoke pointedly and found his way effortlessly up the chain of command to locate information on materials still missing from the indecises. Although Jackson has yet to succeed in bringing a matter to trial, his filings have been punctual, coherent and he has pursued his actions conscientious and consistancy. What has impressed me most about Mr. Leeds is his persistence. He set himself a direction, and has maintained a steady motion to achieve the goal he set. It seems to me that, given the education, Mr. Leeds has the potential to become a considerable asset in public interest law. It is an area that interests him a great deal. For these reasons I would recommemd that you give him an opportunity to aquire the necessary education. Sincerely yours,