Enactment Clauses

Does anyony know why there is an enactment glause on pg # 1 of the California Penal Code, but no enactment clause in the California Vehicle Code? ANd what is the significance of this? Thanks.

[weishaupt1776]

No enactment clause means it is not law. It should be in Article III of your Constitution.

Courts "supposedly" can only hear "law", so there would be no subject matter jurisdiction for the court to prosecute based on a statute

Go to a law library & look in the annotated Constitution.

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by tlynum

Does anyony know why there is an enactment glause on pg # 1 of the California Penal Code, but no enactment clause in the California Vehicle Code? ANd what is the significance of this? Thanks.

I've been looking into this on another forum. I've not yet been able to confirm there is no enactment clause. However, it's not the code that needs enactment, it's the STATUTE (the original Act of Legislature).

I've not been able to get my hands on a copy of the original statutes so i've been at a standstill on it.

What i was thinking is just moving forward in a case with the assumption that there was no enacting clause and forcing the prosecution to produce it.

-BT

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by TheBlackTruth

What i was thinking is just moving forward in a case with the assumption that there was no enacting clause and forcing the prosecution to produce it.
-BT

And WHY? Because You are the Rooster & they are the dawg

BT,

I am aware that the statue and not the code needs to be enacted, I just found it peculiar that the Calif. penal code has an enactment clause on the top of pg # 1 but the clause is absent on the corresponding page in the vehicle code.

I put in a motion to dismiss based on the presumption that the laws have not been enacted and I am waiting to see if the DA can prove that they are.

Also, I had a really had an experience in court on 2/18. I filed my motions and served the DA's office on 1/27, and I could tell that the DA was not prepared because he pulled me out of the courtroom and asked me about them. He was looking perplexed because I doubt that he had even bothered to look in the file until they were about to call my case. I got a real kick out of telling him that I wasn't a lawyer and couldn't offer legal advise or explainations and that being that he was my adversary, it would be improper for me to explain my motions to him. You guys should have seen him and his partner flipping thru the pages and looking over their shoulder at me as I sat with the victims/defendants. I even feigned sleep to add insult to injury as I watched them repeatedly looking back in the audience at me.

When I was finally called, the judge told me that he was not going to hear my motion for 2 reasons. 1 he said that I had only filed it one day in advance and 2 because there was a question of whom was representing me.

Now, I did file a couple of documents a day before the hearing, however, I specifically told the judge that I had filed my motions on Jan. 27, how else could I have gotten my motions on calendar. He refused to look in the file, and stated that he was not going to hear my motions regardless of when they were filed until a later date. Basically, what I think happen was that the DA went to the judge during the recess and stated that he was not prepared and the judge decided to use his discretionary power to force me to have the motion hearing rescheduled. Once I realized what was really going on, I asked the judge why he felt it was necessary to push the date back, if both parties are prepared to argue regarding my motion to dismiss. I told him that "...the DA was served with this motion and it was filed with the court approx 3 weeks ago. And further, I demand the same professional courtesy as all of the other interested parties in this matter. If I miss a court appearance you issue a bench warrant, therefore I expect that when something is on calendar it should be heard unless there is some type of emergency. My time is valuable too."

His response was to go into this long winded speech regarding how he thought it was a bad decision for me to dismiss the public defender, and that I should hire a lawyer. Then he stated that he was not going to release the public defenders office eventhough I had already signed the documents to relieve them from the case. Now at this time I am on my 2nd objections, and he is basically just making up the rules on the spot. He ended by saying that he would give me as much time as I needed to find an attorney.

My response to this was that I didn't need a lawyer, especially since no lawyer was going to be willing to expose the constructive fraud that the State was engaged in when that very fraud allows them to make bundles of money. So finally since I realized that he was not going to rule on my motions under any circumstances, I just picked a date in April when I could get off of work without too much of a problem.

I didn't know that a judge could just not hear something on calendar like that, but I don't know why I keep expecting fairness. But I'll use the time to bombard them with more paperwork and keep studying.

[Paul88]

I have creadted a paper based on this before the judge threw it out and would not hear it. I can post the paper for the group.

good you brought this post up front. what you do is void the case YOURSELF. file a power of attorney over the strawman and make the legal detemination the case is void if they cannot provide a enacting clause within 10 days and file notice of the void judgment into the public record. get them to agree that any action they take after default is kidnapping, extortion or whatever applies to your situation. thats it. forget asking them to make determinations, be your own master and make that determination yourself. peeace.

Paul by all means post the document.

kgodd, I need assistance with the power of attorney and notice of void judgement. I'll look in the files section to see if I can find examples.

Thanks.

[TheBlackTruth]

To excuse your PD, I suggest you issue a memorandum of law on Farreta v. California, in which the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a defendant has ". . .a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so. Stated another way, the question is whether a State may constitutionally hale a person into its criminal courts and there force a lawyer upon him, even when he insists that he wants to conduct his own defense. It is not an easy question, but we have concluded that a State may not constitutionally do so. "
FARETTA v. CALIFORNIA, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 06/30/1975)

Also, if you didn't sign a waiver of time, you may be able to file a Motion to Dismiss based on PC 1382 (speedy trial provision) since the judge had no cause to push back your hearing dates.

As for the Enacting Clause, I still haven't brought that issue up, but a good start would be to swear out an Affidavit that states after an exhaustive search you were unable to find the enacting clause of the act of legislature which contains statute you are accused of violating and believe none exists.

Note: ALWAYS get a copy of the transcripts from each appearance. You can delay indefinitely until they get you the transcripts.

-BT

[weishaupt1776]

Yup, The EC is a Big one for an MtD for no SMJ

Make it clear that courts can only hear "law", that is if you have the BLR take JN of his Oath.

"Judge, is this your Oath to uphold the Constitution?"

"Is the statute on this ticket consistent w/ the Const"?

"Article III sec 6 says any thing that's law has an EC"

"Will you take JN of Art II sec6?"

"Would it be a fair hearing to proceed if you were to enforce your orders based on public policies that have not been enacted into positive law?"

Get the drift?