Enacting Clause

many in the patroit movement know that the supreme court and most state constitutions require a enacting clause for a law to be enacted into positive law. The enacting clause identifies the lawgiver (county,state,city ,etc.) and who it applies to. most codes dont have enacting clauses thus rendering the law invalid and not positive law. My question is this, why or what prevents them from putting the enacting clauses in the law?

[Ice]

The point of that is that you are not in violation of CODE... that's all.& So, when they get you into court what they can do is use the actual law instead of the code... it really isn't a big deal.& The prosecutor can read the law and cite the code -- either way the law they charge has been violated is now on the record.


But the problem that most people seem to skim over is that the law only applies to those that hold the office of "Person".


Think about it.


&

so, are you saying that code applies only to artificial persons, corporations,etc.?& the lack of a enacting clause is a big issue to those who use common law. you are right though about the office of person when u look at the fact that persons commit the crime, not flesh and blood men and women.

[Ice]

NO.& I am saying that the code applies to those that hold the "office" of "Person".


For more information see the&stories and downloads available here at suijuris.


&

[suijuris]

http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuri...pic=Government


Read "Person 1" & "Person 2"&

Gotcha, i forgot that in legalize anytime you see the word "include" it really means "only". any other words they will say for example: "this code includes drivers". a lay person would take that to mean that drivers and others are to obey that particular code when in essence it is really saying that drivers only are to obey that particular code. so, the definition of person includes those other than men and women.

[goldphoenix]

Questions on "person" and legalise.


I've noticed in ORC, here is definition of "whoever" and "another" in general definitions for the code:



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(A) "Whoever" includes all persons, natural and artificial; partners; principals, agents, and employees; and all officials, public or private.</FONT></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(B) "Another," when used to designate the owner of property which is the subject of an offense, includes not only natural persons but also every other owner of property.</FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1>


&


Person is defined as:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(C) "Person" includes an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association.</FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman">under administrative procedures person is defined as:
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(F) "Person" means a person, firm, corporation, association, or partnership.</FONT>
Here is definition of "disabled condition" and "disabled person":

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(A) "Disabled condition" means the condition of being unconscious, semiconscious, incoherent, or otherwise incapacitated to communicate.</FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(B) "Disabled person" means a person in a disabled condition.</FONT>
Question on this: does a legal fiction have "consciousness"? can a legal fiction "communicate"? are legal fictions "disabled"? or in a "disabled condition"?
"person" under civil long arm statutes is defined as:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>"person" includes an individual, his executor, administrator, or other personal representative, or a corporation, partnership, association, or any other legal or commercial entity, who is a nonresident of this state.</FONT>
Here is a definition of "obligor" under the long arm statute of UIFSA in Ohio:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(M) "Obligor" means an individual, or the estate of a decedent to which any of the following applies:</FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(1) The individual or estate owes or is alleged to owe a duty of support;</FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(2) The individual is alleged but has not been adjudicated to be a parent of a child;</FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000000 size=3>(3) The individual or estate is liable under a support order.</FONT>
I can't find the definition of "individual" anywhere though, or "natural."
Any thoughts, ideas,&or comments would be appreciated.
Best wishes,
goldphoenix</TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></TD>
<TD></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3 height=1></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD>
<TD rowSpan=5></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=3></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[FlunkyNoMo]

It is my understanding that when the definition of a word is unavailable in a legal dictionary a dictionary such as Webster's is consulted.
Regarding "natural" Webster's reads:
n 1One born without the usual powers of reason and understanding: IDIOT
From this one could reasonably conclude that only a natural (idiot) person would think that they are described in the code as a "natural person".

& FNM&

Not sure under what legal proceedings a non-artificial person is called a "respondent," but that's another definition that puts things into a new perspective:


From Code of VA:<FONT face=Arial size=2>


Title 37.1 - INSTITUTIONS FOR THE MENTALLY ILL; MENTAL HEALTH GENERALLY....


§ 37.1-134.6. Definitions.


"Respondent" means an allegedly incapacitated person for whom a petition for guardianship or conservatorship has been filed.


So, to quote Mr.T: "I pity the fool" that ever sends me anything and calls me a "respondent."


Randy</FONT>

[john4na]

Hey great post so far,

My Blacks 6th says "Respondent"
In Equity practice, the party who makes an asnwerto a bill or other proceding in equity. In Appelate practice, The party who contends against an appeal.ie the Appellee.
In civil Law, one who answers or is the surity for another; a fidejussor.

John