ILS Services, Inc.
Austin Centre #1860
701 Brazos, Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78701
Email:
ilsservicesinc@yahoo.com
Title 18 part 1
part 1 crimes
Chapter 11A Child Support
1.) show the enactment clause of title 18
2.) show when title 18 was published in the federal register
if the district courts who are presume to know the law, are making prosecution and rulings and there is no jurisdiction it becomes a direct confilect of intrest for them to rule on title 18.
as there would be no subject matter jurisdiction,so it makes the judge libal, civil libal,and posible criminal libal. for making these ruleings on a invalid stutes.
ILS Services, Inc., a leading legal research firm headquartered in Austin, Texas, announced that it has been advised that the first person has been released challenging the validity of Title 18.
Further research by ILS has also uncovered another significant error in the criminal code. The federal Title 18 criminal code was codified in 1909, again in 1940, and again in 1948. In 1909 and 1940 the jurisdictional section for federal courts only authorized prosecution under Title 18 crimes, not under drug crimes or IRS crimes. The 1940 statute, 18 USC § 546, we never repealed or amended. That statute, which is still valid, only authorized prosecution for 1909 Title 18 crimes, nothing for Title 21 or Title 26. Furthermore, under the Fair Warning Doctrine, to prosecute someone under a prior statute, a person must be given warning under that statute. Therefore, no possible prosecution exists under Title 21, Title 26, or under any Title 18 charge other than those listed in the 1909 act, but prior notice is required.
ILS intends to reopen cases by raising the additional error, which would deprive the court of jurisdiction over any criminal case.
The courts are a part of the department of justice if the courts were independent they would only care if the proper constitutional decision was made.
Was Title 18 in 1948 voted on by the house of representatives?
I can find no vote by the house on title 18 in 1948.
What I have found is this,
The 80th Congress to the United States was convened in 1947 January and ended in December of 1948 IN TWO sessions one in 1947 and one in 1948. the idea was to codify the criminal code of the United States to make it simplerad to remove any ambiguities and to define what the penalties were. and also to create another Jurisdictional fiction which gave the district court the authority to prosecute crimes.
This created a jurisdictional fiction 18 U.S.C 3231
The house voted on an passed the codification of title eighteen June 1948 then Congress adjourned, after congress adjourned the the president of the United States Called Congress back into session by approximation .
The basic rule of law which comes down from the English " when a president or king called Congress back in session it terminates all previous legislation"
They stayed in session for a month or so.
Then they convened again.
Then the president of the United States called in to session again.
At the end of 1947
Congress then had a adjournment and call this a adjurnment a sine die (any thing not singed dies) adjournment.There where two major a adjournment in 1947 the one at the end of July, then the one at the end of December.
Now if we look at:
1.) Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430, 444, Appendix, N.4 (1974)
2.) Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d at 444, Appendix, n.5
3.) United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 72 S.Ct. 263, 96 L.Ed. 232 (1952).
4.) See Brendan W. Randall, Comment, United States v. Cooper, The Writ of Error Coram Nobis and the Morgan Footnote Paradox, 74 Minn. L. Rev. 1063, 1106 n. 71 (1990)(citing the Congressional Record).
5.) We have to look at and understand How and why
Public Law 80-773, the underlying statute, is unconstitutional on its face, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1948) and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, et seq. (1948) whose validity as law is directly intertwined and dependent on the “passage” of Public Law 80-773, are likewise
unconstitutional on their face, void ab initio as a matter of law.
Which are :
In summary, the main problems with the enactment of Title 28 of the United States Code by the 80th Congress are the following:
(1) The two houses of the Congress passed the same numbered bill, one house in the first session of Congress and the second house in the second session of the same Congress (the two sessions being separated by a sine die intersession adjournment). Specifically, it is unconstitutional (or illegal) for the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 3214 in 1947 (in the First Session of the 80th Congress) and for the Senate to pass it in 1948 (in the Second Session of the 80th Congress), without the House passing it once again in the Second Session).,
(2) An H.R. bill cannot be first passed by the Senate before it is passed by the House of Representatives. Specifically, the fact that the House of Representatives concurred in the Senate amendments (on June 16, 1948), after the Senate passed the amended H.R. 3214 did not cure the problem.
(3) It is unconstitutional for the President to sign an enrolled bill after the final adjournment of the Congress (not in open session), after a sine die adjournment, and when he pocket vetoes 14 bills.. Specifically, it is unconstitutional for the President to sign H.R. 3214 into law after the final sine die adjournment of the 80th Congress on June 20, 1948 when he pocket vetoes 14 bills.
(4) The above-referenced (3) is unconstitutional even in light of the House Concurrent Resolution 219, which both houses passed on June 19, 1948, to authorize (3), because President Truman never had to sign H.Con.Res. 219.
(5) The above-referenced (3) is also illegal under 1 U.S.C. § 101, which states “BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.” Despite the fact that both houses of the 80th Congress passed H.Con.Res. 219 to authorize the above-referenced (3) because a House Concurrent Resolution does not require the President’s signature and, thus, cannot override (invalidate) 1 U.S.C. § 101.
(6) The House of Representatives never voted on the amended bill that the Senate passed on June 12, 1948. Thus, even if we assume that there is no problem with the House of Representatives passing H.R. 3214 in the First Session (1947) of the 80th Congress, the problem is still not solved because the Senate amended the bill that the House had passed in 1947. Thus, the House and Senate passed different bills, in violation of the Presentment Clause, Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution.
