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.  

     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 presume that freedom of thought and expression are the seed
of civil rights, the root of democracy, which may, with dedication,
produce a healthy civilization.  I reason that the fruit of free
thought and expression is peaceful social growth.  As an
alternative to peaceful social growth I can only see the rule of
"right" as dictated by might.  See, Attachment 1, pg. 2.  

     From my experience of the human condition I can conceive of no
surer check against rule by brute force than a mechanism to find
facts and intelligently apply well-founded principles to the facts
found.  Notwithstanding certain reservations (e.g., Thomas v.
United States, 557 A.2d 1296 at 1305, 1306; Thomas v. United
States, 864 F.2d 188), I suppose, in this country we have either
the reminants or the rudiments of such a mechanism in the judical
system.

     Other experiences lead me to think that reason can also lay
guidelines for equality in para-legal areas.  See, Attachment 2.
      Observations have led to the working hypothesis that
individual liberty depends on personal responsibility.

     Upon these premises I have encouraged and assisted others to
familiarize themselves with the law and to utilize the judical
mechanism as an artery of dispute resolution.  E.g., Attachment 3.

     As I find it diffucult to imagine that ignorance might provide
a sound basis for a just society, it appears that information is
also vital to the fundamental interests of democracy.

     Within this experiential background that I met Mr. Leeds in
the summer of 1988.   As he is actively pursuing a topic of broad
public 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 his endeavour by
serving papers and trying to act as a sounding board.

     Briefly Jackson's pro se 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 a later occasion I accompanied Mr. Leeds to the
Patent-Trademark Office, he was bound to check on whether the
agency had compiled the indecises.   This gave me the opportunity
to observe his interactions with others around a specific subject.
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 and he has pursued his
actions with dedication and consistency.  

     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, and for these
reasons I would recommemd that you give him an opportunity to
aquire the education.

                        Sincerely yours,