Time: Sat Nov 22 16:58:57 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA03560;
	Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:58:03 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA16204;
	Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:51:41 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd016202; Sat Nov 22 16:51:33 1997
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 16:49:16 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: U.S. Code v. Statutes at Large (fwd)

>VIRTUAL COURT, USA Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert
>Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing
>I have a little book called "The Authority of Law" by
>Charles A Weisman 11751 W River Hills Dr. #107  Burnsville Minn
>55337 that he sells for $10 or $15.
>In this book Weisman discusses, among other topics, how the
>"codes" arose and how the US Code came to be used in prosecutions
>by the federal government. He also covers the topic of the
>publication of purported legislation without an enacting clause
>and title and how and why the requirement of an enacting clause
>and a title on the face of the legislative bill and published law
>must be met for such a purported piece of legislation not to be
>void and null on its face.  A leading case is In re Seat of
>Government, 1 Wash. Ter. 115, 123 (1861).  See also Law and
>Practice of Legislative Assemblies (1819) by Cushing, Blackstone,
>Kent, and numerous State Constitutions and State supreme court
>decisions.  Numerous laws have been declared null and void by
>courts because of the lack of an enacting clause and title on the
>face of the legislative bill and/or published statute. Weisman
>cites these instances thoroughly.
>Weisman recounts that until the case of Steward Machine Co. v.
>Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) laws were cited according to the
>Statutes at Large and the revision of laws called "The United
>States Code", approved by an Act of Congress June 30, 1926 (44
>Stat. Part 1), was largely ignored.  It was cited in a few cases,
>but even then was almost invariably cited with the Statute at
>Large citation.
>According to Weisman, the case of Steward Machine Co. v Davis was
>a turning point in our judicial system, at least in regards to
>criminal matters.  While the Statute at Large was cited, the US
>Code was also included.  This was the case on the
>constitutionality of the Social Security Act.  It was the case
>Cardoza used to begin ramming the New Deal through the Court.
>Thereafter, on all indictments charging a violation of the Social
>Security and the subsequent New Deal socialist legislation
>appeared the US Code, not the Statutes at Large.  Clearly, the
>government saw something fundamental in this case.   By the
>1940's, the Code effectively replaced the Statutes at Large in
>all  criminal proceedings and indictments.
>Weisman:  "Laws within the Statutes at Large were identified as
>being either public or private laws.  Acts which were laws,
>resolutions, or proclamations were so designated by their
>identifying enacting clauses and titles.  But no one can tell the
>nature of the "laws" in the U.S. Code."
>"The object of an enacting clause is to show that the act comes
>from a place pointed out by the Constitution as the source of
>power."  Ferrill v Keel, 151 S.W. 269, 272, 105 Ark. 380 (1912)
>There is no enacting clause for the US Code.  The laws in the
>U.S. Code are unnamed; they show no sign of authority; they carry
>with them no evidence that Congress or any other lawmaking power
>is responsible for them.   They lack the essential requisites to
>make them a law authorized under article 1 of the Constitution
>for the United States.
>No criminal jurisdiction exists without a bona fide act of
>Congress.  61 Statutes at Large 633, 634 sec 101 is a law
>requiring an enacting clause for a bill passed by Congress to be
>law.  An indictment that is not by a law does not establish
>subject matter jurisdiction for a court. Proceedings by a court
>without jurisdiction is usurpation and tyranny.  A judge put on
>notice of this proceeds at his peril.  If he is not put on
>notice, the matter is not raised; the right is waived.
>"jurisdiction of the person may be conferred by consent and by
>pleading to the merits of the case"  [ i.e. entering a plea ] 
>Smith v State 148 S. 858, 860 (Ala. App. 1933).  The issue of
>subject matter jurisdiction is a matter of law, however, and
>cannot be waived.  "Jurisdiction of the subject matter is derived
>from the law.  It can neither be waived nor conferred by consent
>of the accused"  21 American Jurisprudence, 2nd, :Criminal Law"
>sec 339 p 589 "but may be questioned at any stage of proceedings"
>Harris v State 82 A.2d 387, 389, 46 Del. 111 (1950).  The
>challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is the key to stopping
>the de facto courts because it exposes the judge. You need to
>read Weisman to fill in the details.  The US Code and probably
>all state codes are merely prima facia evidence of law, not
>actual law and impeachable as a basis for a valid indictiment. 
>"When a criminal defendent is indicted under a not-yet-effective
>statute, the charging document is void." State v Dungan 718 P.2d
>1010, 1014, 149 Ariz. 357 (1985)
>"Jurisdiction over the subject matter of action is essential to
>power of court to act, and is conferred only by constitution or
>by valid statute." Brown v State 37 N. E. 2d 73, 77 (Ind. 1941)
>There is no difference between the positive parts of the Code and
>the rest of the Code. Go read Title 1 to the US Code.  All it
>says is that "The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of
>Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together
>with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie
>the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their
>nature.. provided however, that whenever titles of such Code
>shall have been enacted into positive law, the text thereof shall
>be legal evidence of the laws therein contained."  It does not
>say they are evidence of the statutes of Congress or of the laws
>of the United States.  There is no difference between prima facia
>evidence and legal evidence. Legal evidence is "circumstantial
>evidence", "heasay evidence", documentary evidence, oral
>testimony evidence, etc., a broad term denoting anything
>admissable in a court of law.  "ADMISSABLE".   Legal evidence is
>not law.  But prima facie evidence which is not challenged or
>impeached is presumed conclusive. The code is impeachable because
>citiations of it are citiations of something that lacks the
>enacting clause and title necessary to make a legislative act
>into law.  The Code is the decree of a committee, not the act of
>a legislature authorized by a Constitution. .  Title 1 is
>doublespeak, saying nothing.   Why is not the US Code ever called
>"the official source of United States laws" ?  What is the legal
>relation between a Court and a "law Revision Counsel".  In the
>Constitution, there is none.  Courts are using Codes by
>permission. There are lots of cases which state that "the
>criminal jurisdiction of the United States exists only by Acts of
>Congress pursuant to the Constitution."  There is evidence of a
>fundamental loss of judicial independence, judicial usurpation,
>and judicial tyranny if a judge, when challenged, supports the
>prosecution in using codes as the basis for subject matter
>jurisdiction for informations, indictments, and complaints.  But
>unless the courts are noticed of this fact, the ground is not
>laid for lawful resistance to tyranny and usurpation.

Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail