Enacting Clause

[gregtu]

If the enacting clause is mandatory for all laws to be valid, how is it that we lose in court? The statutes we're adjudicated by are not law, so what's our remedy?

the remedy is to cancel any contracts you have with the court for fraud and stick on your ground. if you are in jail, family members may have to put up a storm of paperwork to get you out. bottom line, its all about contracts, thats why they pay no attention to enacting clauses or ANY LAW, whether its case law or whatever. he who leaves the battlefield first loses by default. it all comes down to they have the guns, period. there is no law but what you can enforce yourself that will help you.

[Akira]

It's a voluntary legislative court... it's simple... don't volunteer !

Once you have volunteered... it's all legal arguements / opinions... and they always win...

How do you keep from volunteering?

use administrative processes:

void all contracts, as Kgod said, using affidavits and the default process..

Then you can either "file an appearance brief and don't enter the court" as some suggest... or my favorite, show up in court with your unrebutted aff's, and challenge all their presumptions, to their face.... which puts the burden of proof on them, and will make you feel like a million bucks when you win ! ( read about my OAS win here. )

For HIS Glory,
Akira

[The Man]

The truth of the matter is that enacting clauses are not mandatory. At least not here in loverly little Oregon. The legislature is usually divested with the power to create, enact, or repeal laws in your applicable state or federal constitution. As I have noted in the past, and usually been verbally abused for it, Court's usually frown on the legalistic arguments that include contract theory, presentment, affidavits of notorial dishoner, et et et. Why? Because, like it or not, they are not valid legal processes supported by law. Is that right? Who knows, certainly not me. I will say, however, that frequently those same novel legal theories are used by people who have bought something on credit (a house) and now they don't want to pay or they have done something seriosly wrong (child abuse) and don't want to go to jail.

I think the real problem is in the abuse of those same processes and the fact, as I have noted in the past, that you can't go into a gun fight with a knife. Doesn't usually work well for you. You also can't go into an American courthouse with novel, British, archane, or unrecognized legal theories or forms. Should it be that way? Not sure. Certainly would make getting anything done in a court a lot harder if any party to a legal dispute could, pardon the term, just make up documents and legal processes. I had a case where an individual filed a notorial oath of dishoner. There is no such document recognized in Oregon courts. They then filed a series of over 100 questions that I was supposed to answer. Something about proof of cause or whatnot. I replied that the documents served on me were not grounded in caselaw, statutes, rules of civil procedure, or uniform trial court rules. The judge agreed and granted plaintiff no relief.

At the end of the day, it sort of works like this: you go into the DMV with cabbages and walk out with a drivers license. Why? They don't trade in that currency. Court's are the same way. Again, for better or for worse.

But hey, that is just what I think.

[weishaupt1776]

Long time no post. We miss you, Man

The Man is back in town.

What's your handle at Quatloos?

[gregtu]

Even though the law (Florida Constitution) says it, the judges and court ignore it.

--Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: "Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:".

[Akira]

Welcome back !

Your point is well taken, and appreciated !

I quite agree ! If you're going to jump in and play their game, you had best know their rules !

You should also know who they are...

I recommend not playing their game at all.

but lets start with who 'they' are...

I would like to point out, Oregon is one of the most blatantly corrupt states in the union. You need only check out A Voice For Children. The Gastons recused (if memory serves) 44 of 47 judges there. ( fraud & racketeering )

I am proud to say, I was asked by Rev.Ed Johnston to speak at Pam Gaston's Funeral, but was unable to make the trip.


Enabling Clause

First, let's not forget about comity....

COMITY. Courtesy; a disposition to accomodate.

2. Courts of justice in one state will, out of comity, enforce the laws of another state, when by such enforcement they will not violate their laws or inflict. an injury on some one of their own citizens; as, for example, the discharge of a debtor under the insolvent laws of one state, will be respected in another state, where there is a reciprocity in this respect.

3. It is a general rule that the municipal laws of a country do not extend beyond its limits, and cannot be enforced in another, except on the principle of comity. But when those laws clash and interfere with the rights of citizens, or the laws of the countries where the parties to the contract seek to enforce it, as one or the other must give way, those prevailing where the relief is sought must have the preference. 2 Mart. Lo. Rep. N. S. 93; S. C. 2 Harr. Cond. Lo. Rep. 606, 609; 2 B. & C. 448, 471; 6 Binn. 353; 5 Crancb, 299; 2 Mass. 84; 6 Mass. 358; 7 Mart. Lo. R. 318. See Conflict of Laws; Lex loci contractus. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 (emphasis mine)

Next, both the federal, and original jurisdiction Constitutions say something about Ex Post Facto:

If "the legislatures are forbidden to pass ex post facto laws". U.S. Const. art. 1, s. 10, subd. 1.....

LAWS EX POST FACTO. Those which are made to punish actions committed before the existence of such laws, and which had not been declared crimes by preceding laws. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 (emphasis mine)

If you can't be punished for an earlier act, once the statute becomes law How can you be punished for your act, before the statute becomes law?

Isn't the STATE using all statuatory rules and regs to punish you BEFORE THOSE STATUTES BECOME LAW???

The judge/magistrate will call the statutes "Evidence of Law"... This is just more 'legalese' (in my humble opinion), as the statutes can never be evidence of what they never were.... That's just nonsense... I will acknowledge, however, that the statutes are 'evidence of legislative intent' !

To see what the Georgia Supreme Court said about a lack of an enabling/enacting clause, please see the case cite here.

Joiner v. Georgia 223 Ga. 367, 155 S.E.2d 8
'All written laws, in all times and in all countries, whether in the form of decrees issued by absolute monarchs, or statutes enacted by king and council, or by a representative body, have, as a rule, expressed upon their face the authority by which they were promulgated or enacted. The almost unbroken custom of centuries has been to preface laws with a statement in some form declaring the enacting authority.'

To others reading this post, there are those of us here with accounts on Lexus Nexus and Westlaw. If you are uncertain whether your state acts as Oregon does, and ignores comity, and the Constitution/Bill of Rights, or need a case cite which is vital for your case, please ask for assistance.


For HIS Glory,
Akira

[Shoonra]

I am not at all certain why this topic was raised. Yes, a statute needs an enacting clause (and a resolution needs a resolving clause) but ...
... courts have held that it is sufficient that the required enacting clause in the one original, signed statute that is kept in the state archives (federal statutes are kept in the National Archives, and before the 1950s in the US State Dept), and it is NOT necessary that the enacting clause appear in the printed editions. In particular, a code - as distinguished from a compilation of the statutes - doesn't include the enacting clause anywhere because it re-arranges the individual sections of the various statutes.

[SirPhuzzmond]

Has anyone noticed that in the front of all these code books on the title page they are copyrighted. Seems to me if it belongs to the public at large like the constition it can't be copyrighted. Oh well, i guess Title 17 USC has no bearing on that anyway. Maybe it is a clue that these are created from a private corporation and not a public government? Hmmm... anyone got thoughts on that?

[Shoonra]

The official edition of the United States Code, printed by the US Government Printing Office, does NOT have a copyright nor a copyright notice.

What you are looking at, probably, are volumes of the US Code Annotated (USCA) printed by West-Thomson and of the US Code Service (USCS) printed by Lexis. Those are commercial editions, reprinting the public domain US Code ... plus extensive case notes and other embellishments added by the commercial editors. It's those embellishments that are copyrighted, not the US Code sections themselves.

The US Code was first compiled in 1924 and the official edition came out about a year later. In 1927 the USCA made its appearance from West Publishing Co. Around 1932 Bobbs-Merrill publishing churned out its own commercial edition, Federal Code Annotated (FCA), which was bought out around 1972 by Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Company which perpetuated this series under the new name of US Code Service (around 1995, Lawyers Co-op was bought out by the same Canadian conglomerate that purchased West, and the US Dept of Justice insisted that the USCS franchise be sold, and it was bought by Reed-Elzevier doing lawbooks as Lexis Publishing). The official edition has entire new editions even six years, with five annual supplements in-between; but everything gets printed about two years late. The USCA and USCS, on the other hand, print out quarterly supplements and update their sets with annual pocket parts that slip into the back of the hardcover volumes.