Time: Thu Mar 27 13:36:54 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA25278;
	Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:30:53 -0700 (MST)
	by usr07.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA22464;
	Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:30:18 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:24:12 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Counsel MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES (1 of 3)

[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


William Michael Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o 2108 Lookout Street
Gadsden, Alabama state
[zip code exempt]

In Propria Persona
Under Protest, Necessity,
and by Special Visitation

all rights reserved





                 CIRCUIT COURT OF ETOWAH COUNTY
                                
                          ALABAMA STATE
                                
STATE OF ALABAMA,               ) Case No. #CC-95-1083
                                )
          Plaintiff,            )     MEMORANDUM OF LAW
                                ) IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
     v.                         )   WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
                                ) WITH POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
WILLIAM MICHAEL KEMP [sic],     )
                                )
          Defendant.            )
________________________________)

COMES NOW  William Michael,  Kemp, Sui  Juris, Citizen of Alabama

state, expressly  not a  citizen of  the United  States ("federal

citizen") and Defendant in the above entitled action (hereinafter

"Defendant"), to  present this,  His MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

OF  PETITION   FOR  WRIT   OF  HABEAS  CORPUS,  WITH  POINTS  AND

AUTHORITIES, filed  concurrently in  the instant  case with  said

Petition.

     The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

     In all  criminal prosecutions,  the accused  shall enjoy the
     right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Defendant asks  this honorable  Court to  take Judicial Notice of

the fact  that many  of the men who contributed to the writing or

ratifying of  the Constitution  were attorneys, such as John Jay,

first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and John Marshall,


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 1 of 32


a later  Chief Justice.   John  Adams, James Wilson, John Blaire,

and Oliver  Ellsworth were  among the  many  fine  attorneys  who

assisted in  approving the  language used in the Constitution for

the United States of America (hereinafter "U.S. Constitution").

     Are we  to believe  that the  word "COUNSEL" was selected by

these "attorneys"  with no  thought whatsoever  to its Common Law

meaning at that time?

     In discussing  a defendant's  Right  to  Counsel,  the  U.S.

Supreme Court has held:

     ... [H]is  right to  be heard  through his  own  counsel  is
     UNQUALIFIED.   Chandler v.  Fretag,  348  U.S.  3  [emphasis
     added]

     In consulting  Noah  Webster's  1828  dictionary,  the  word

"unqualified" is defined as:

     Not  modified,  limited,  or  restricted  by  conditions  or
     exceptions;   ....  (Noah  Webster's  First  Edition  of  an
     American  Dictionary   of  the   English   Language,   1828,
     republished in  facsimile edition by Foundation for American
     Christian  Education,   San  Francisco,  California,  second
     edition, 1980)

     It is undeniable that the explicit use of the word "Counsel"

in the Sixth Amendment was intended to mean someone other than an

attorney, as  well as an attorney.  This view is upheld by a U.S.

District Court  when it  recognized an accountant as Counsel, and

reprimanded an IRS employee:

     Yet while  he was informing the prospective defendant of his
     Right to  Counsel, he was simultaneously requesting that the
     Defendant's Counsel leave the interrogation.  In effect, the
     investigator informed  Tarlowski  that  he  might  have  his
     attorney present, but not his accountant.

Ruling in  favor of  Tarlowski's motion  to suppress,  the  Court

said:


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 2 of 32


     For a government official to mouth in a ritualistic way part
     of the  warning about  the right to counsel, while excluding
     the person  relied upon as counsel is, in effect, to reverse
     the meaning  of the  words  used.  U.S.  v.  Tarlowski,  305
     F.Supp. 112 (1969)

     Defendant also asks the Court to take Judicial Notice of the

use of the word "Counsel" in the 17th century:

     ... and  in all courts persons of all persuaisions [sic] may
     freely appear  in their  own way, and according to their own
     manner and  there plead  their own  causes themselves, or if
     unable, by  their friends ....  Fundamental Constitution for
     the Province of East Jersey (1683) [emphasis added].

To have  a "friend" act as Counsel was a Common Law Right and was

recognized as  such in the Bill of Rights when the term "Counsel"

was used instead of the term "attorney."

     The language  of  the  Constitution  cannot  be  interpreted
     safely, except  by reference  to common  law and  to British
     institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and
     adopted.   The statesmen  and lawyers  of the convention who
     submitted it  to the  ratification  of  conventions  of  the
     thirteen states,  were born and brought up in the atmosphere
     of the  common law  and thought  and spoke in its vocabulary
     ... when they came to put their conclusions into the form of
     fundamental law  in a compact , they expressed them in terms
     of common  law, confident  that they  could by  shortly  and
     easily understood.   Ex  parte Grossman,  267 U.S.  87,  108
     (1925) [emphasis added]

     No limit  or qualification  was ever intended to be put upon

the Right  to "assistance  of Counsel" in the Sixth Amendment and

Defendant submits  the word  "Counsel" was used in recognition of

the Common  Law  Right  to  have  one's  "friends"  speak  for  a

Defendant, if  he so  chose.   Reference to  the  Common  Law  is

mandatory in  a proper  interpretation of  the U.S. Constitution,

but most  particularly in  the  Bill  of  Rights.    There  is  a

preponderance of  U.S.  Supreme  Court  cases  which  uphold  the

position of Defendant on interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 3 of 32


     ...  as   men  whose   intentions  require  no  concealment,
     generally employ  the words  which most  directly and  aptly
     express the  ideas they  intend to  convey: the  enlightened
     patriots who  framed our  constitution and  the  people  who
     adopted it  must be understood to have employed the words in
     their natural  sense, and  to have  intended what  they have
     said.  Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

And,

     ... In the construction of the constitution, we must look to
     the history  of the  times, and  examine the state of things
     existing when  it was  framed and  adopted. 12 Wheat 354;  6
     Wheat 416;   4  Peters 431-2;  to ascertain the old law, the
     mischief and the remedy.  State of Rhode Island v. The State
     of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1938)

And also,  in speaking  further of  Constitutional provisions, we

find:

     We agree,  it is  not  to  be  frittered  away  by  doubtful
     construction, but like every clause in every constitution it
     must have  reasonable interpretation, and be held to express
     the intention  of the  framers.  Woodson v. Murdock, 89 U.S.
     351, 369 (1874)

And further,

     The necessities  which gave  birth to  the Constitution, the
     controversies which  precede its formation and the conflicts
     of opinion  which were settled by its adoption, may properly
     be taken  into view  for the  purposes  of  tracing  to  its
     source, any  particular provision  of the  Constitution,  in
     order thereby,  to be  enabled to  correctly  interpret  its
     meaning.   Pollock v.  Farmers' Loan  & Trust  Co., 157 U.S.
     429, 558

     History shows conclusively that it was a Common Law Right to

be represented in court by a "friend" rather than an attorney, if

one chose.   Defendant  claims that right herein, which the Sixth

Amendment did  indeed secure, and is not subject to "revision" by

the American Bar Association.

     Undoubtedly  what   went  before   the   adoption   of   the
     Constitution may  be resorted to for the purpose of throwing
     light on  its provisions.  Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521,
     533 (1971)


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 4 of 32


     Each word  has a  particular meaning  and  was  deliberately

chosen.   The word  "Counsel" was not idly set down as the law of

this land,  but, on  the contrary,  was selected with great skill

and meaning.

     To disregard  such a  deliberate choice  of words  and their
     natural  meaning,  would  be  a  departure  from  the  first
     principle of  Constitutional interpretation.  "In expounding
     the Constitution  of the  United States," said Chief Justice
     Taney in  Holmes v.  Jennison, 14 540, 570, 571, "every word
     must have  its due force and appropriate meaning;  for it is
     evident  from  the  whole  instrument,  that,  no  word  was
     unnecessarily  used,   or  needlessly   added."    The  many
     discussions which  have taken place upon the construction of
     the  Constitution,  have  proved  the  correctness  of  this
     proposition;  and shown the high talent, the caution and the
     foresight of  the illustrious men who framed it.  Every word
     appears to  have been  weighed with  the utmost deliberation
     and its  force and  effect to  have been  fully  understood.
     Wright v. U.S., 302 U.S. 583 (1938) [emphasis added]

     Little did  the Framers  of Our Constitution, who labored so

long and hard to fashion it, realize that the day might come when

it would  be ridiculed  by law  professors, snickered  at by  law

clerks, and  consigned to  the wastebasket by attorneys, the bar,

and the Judiciary.

     To narrowly  interpret  the  word  "Counsel"  to  mean  only

"licensed attorneys"  is an  infringement  of  Defendant's  Sixth

Amendment right to Counsel, which even the U.S. Supreme Court has

held is "unqualified."  See Chandler supra.

     The words  of the  Amendment  are  simple,  clear,  and  not

ambiguous, and  were obviously  written by  Our Forefathers to be

understood by  The People,  as the  following citation undeniably

indicates:

     The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters;
     its  words  and  phrases  were  used  in  their  normal  and
     ordinary, as  distinguished from  technical meaning;   where
     the intention  is clear,  there is no room for construction,


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 5 of 32


     and no  excuse for  interpolation or  addition.   Martin  v.
     Hunter's Lessee,  1 Wheat 304;  Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 1;
     Brown v.  Maryland, 12 Wheat 419;  Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet.
     10;   Tennessee v.  Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139;  Lake County v.
     Rollins, 130 U.S. 662;  Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1;
     Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628;  The Pocket Veto Case,
     279 U.S.  655 (justice)  Story on the Constitution, 5th ed.,
     sec. 451;   Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., P.
     61, 70.


And further,

     It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is
     intended to  be without  effect ....   Marbury v. Madison, 5
     U.S. 137, 174 (1803)

     In passing,  it might  be  noted  that  Chief  Justice  John

Marshall, who  principally was responsible for the holding in the

above cited Marbury case, and who seems to be looked upon by most

attorneys and  judges  as  the  greatest  of  Our  Supreme  Court

justices,  is   reported  to   have  had  two  weeks  law  school

preparation, at which time half his study was philosophy.  Also:

     The Constitution  is a  written instrument.   As  such,  its
     meaning does  not alter.   That  which it  meant when it was
     adopted, it means now.  South Carolina v. United States, 199
     U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

     Defendant  is   deeply  perturbed  at  the  erosion  of  his

fundamental Right to Counsel by the very legal profession itself.

The restriction  of the Courts to professional attorneys only, is

the result  of attorneys  who sat  in Our  legislatures and voted

upon laws  which involved,  for them,  a conflict of interest and

which were,  and are,  upheld by their brother attorneys, who sit

on the  benches  of  Our  Courts,  ruling  in  violation  of  the

Sovereign will  of The  People, which  it is  their sworn duty to

obey.


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 6 of 32


     Any State law which prohibits laymen from speaking on behalf

of another,  when sought  for that purpose, is a violation of the

Sixth Amendment.   Any  implementation of  such State  laws  also

violates Defendant's  rights to freedom of speech, wherein he may

speak through whom he chooses;  to freedom of association wherein

he may  associate with  whom he  pleases;  to due process of law,

wherein he  is denied  Counsel of  his choice  and therefore as a

consequence, he  is denied a fair trial, and he is also denied an

impartial jury  by being  unable to speak, as he knows he should,

through Counsel of trust to the jury.

     To be  denied a layman to assist him with advice, and to act

as a spokesman at Defendant's request, is to subject Defendant to

unequal treatment  under the law.  As a Citizen of Alabama state,

Defendant has  less Rights  and worse  treatment than  inmates in

state and  federal prisons, who are permitted "jailhouse" lawyers

-- laymen  who practice  law on  behalf of their fellow prisoners

with the approval of many Courts.

     As a Citizen of Alabama state, Defendant is denied the right

to contract  when he  is forbidden  the assistance  of one who is

willing to  speak for  him at  his    request.    The  denial  of

Defendant's right  to contract,  it  is  respectfully  submitted,

occurs because  attorneys, who  are, in  this State, members of a

bar association  (a monopoly  they have  promoted  through  their

controlled legislature)  have purported  to make  a "law" for the

protection  of   the  "public";    whereas,  they  have  actually

instigated a self-serving franchise, in great part at the expense

of the  public and,  in Defendant's  view, to  the  detriment  of

Constitutional government.


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 7 of 32


     Again, Defendant  is denied  a "fair trial" and an impartial

jury when  a so-called  "law" prohibits him from contracting with

someone of  his choosing  for Defendant's legal defense against a

hostile government,  bent on punishing Defendant for the exercise

of the  very fundamental  Rights which  the government  should be

upholding rather than attacking.

     The  aforementioned  rights  are  infringed,  abridged,  and

denied  when  the  word  "Counsel"  is  qualified  to  mean  only

attorneys may  speak for the defense in a Court of Law.  This was

not the case in Tarlowski, where the "Counsel" referred to by the

Court was an accountant.

     It appears  to Defendant that a careful consideration of the

words of  the Sixth  Amendment, securing his fundamental Right to

Counsel of  CHOICE must  be undertaken here.  Since no words were

idly selected  by the Forefathers, let us emphasize them here and

now so that there can be no misunderstanding as to their meaning,

for  Defendant   believes   his   stand   in   this   matter   is

constitutionally correct.  The vital words here are:

     In all  criminal prosecutions,  the accused  SHALL ENJOY the
     RIGHT ... to have the ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL for his defence.

     Defendant requests the Court's indulgence and patience for a

brief analysis  of the words capitalized above because, where his

Life, Liberty, or Property are involved, it is not a matter which

he takes lightly.

     For the  source of the common meaning of common words in use

when  the  U.S.  Constitution  was  written,  we  refer  to  Noah

Webster's First  Edition of an American Dictionary of the English

Language,  1828,   republished  in   facsimile  edition   by  the


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 8 of 32


Foundation  for  American  Christian  Education,  San  Francisco,

California, Second Edition, 1980.

     ALL:  a. Every one ... the whole quantity, extent, duration,
     amount, quality,  or degree;   ...   This word signifies the
     whole or entire thing ....

     It is  obvious on its face that the word "all" allows for no

exceptions and  is all-inclusive, and it is also obvious that the

Sixth Amendment, therefore, allows for no criminal trial where it

does not apply.

     SHALL:   v.i. In  the present  tense, shall  ...  forms  the
     future tense;   ...  informs another  that a fact is to take
     place ....  In the second and third persons, shall implies a
     promise, command or determination.  "You shall receive ...."

The word  "shall," in legal contemplation, is mandatory;  it is a

word "of  command ... must be given a compulsory meaning."  It is

clearly so  stated on  page 1233 of Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth

Edition, 1979.

     ENJOY:   v.t ... To feel or perceive with pleasure;  to take
     pleasure or  satisfaction in the possession or experience of
     ....     We  enjoy   a  free  constitution  and  inestimable
     privileges.

     Defendant  has   informed  the  Court  that  he  has  little

confidence  in  the  legal  profession  of  Haldeman,  Erlichman,

Mitchell, Dean,  Nixon and Agnew, and not to mention many others.

He is  defending himself  out of  necessity, not  out of  desire.

Defendant is  aware of  a few attorneys whom he trusts, but their

multi-thousand dollar  fees are  out of  the  question  for  this

Defendant.  He does not trust just any attorney out of a grab-bag

whom the  government is  willing to  furnish;  neither would this

defendant be  satisfied with  such an "attorney's" concept of the

U.S. Constitution.   The  average attorney,  full  of  law-school


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 9 of 32


brainwashing, thinks  that the  U.S.  Constitution  is  what  the

judges say  it is,  rather than what the Constitution itself says

it is.

     If Defendant cannot "enjoy" the "assistance of Counsel" from

the  Bar   (i.e.  the  legal  establishment),  then  he  has  the

undeniable Right  of Counsel  which he  can enjoy.   To deny this

Right is to deny his Rights under the Sixth Amendment to Counsel.

It is  the use  of the  word "ENJOY," as well as "COUNSEL," which

gives a  Defendant the  Right  to  the  Counsel  of  his  choice,

licensed or  unlicensed, as  was provided  for  by  the  Founding

Fathers, and  of which  the Ninth Amendment clearly prohibits any

denial or disparagement:

     The enumeration  in the  Constitution,  of  certain  rights,
     shall not  be construed to deny or disparage others retained
     by the people.

     What honest  attorney or  judge can  fail to see that in the

denial of  Counsel of  choice to a Defendant in court, that he is

not "denying" or "disparaging" both enumerated and non-enumerated

rights?

     And what  honest attorney  or judge  can fail to see that in

enforcing a so-called statute denying a layman the opportunity to

speak in  defense of  a friend at the friend's request, that said

lawyer or  judge is rendering infidelity to his oath of office to

support the Constitution which states, in Article VI, Clause 2?

     This Constitution,  and the  Laws of the United States which
     shall be  made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme
     Law of  the Land;   and  the Judges  in every State shall be
     bound thereby,  any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any
     State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
                                                 [emphasis added]


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 10 of 32


Attorneys are  called "officers  of  the  court,"  and  they  are

required to  take oaths  to support  the U.S. Constitution.  When

the attorneys  attempt to  prevent the  exercise of the Rights of

defendants in  court to  speak through lay friends of confidence,

the attorneys  are involved  in denying  that which they swear to

uphold -- to their eternal discredit and dishonor.

     The fact  that the attorneys have been successful for a long

time, and  that colleagues  in judicial  robes have  upheld them,

does not make it right;  it does not make it constitutional;  and

it certainly  does not  enhance the  Rights  of  the  grass-roots

American  People   who  are  tired  of  being  subjected  to  the

exorbitant legal  fees of a closed-shop union which says, "If you

exercise your  fundamental Rights,  we will see to it that you go

to jail,"  and now, "You have to go our route because the loss of

your fundamental Rights is a settled matter."

     How could  any decent  person uphold such a system?  How can

the legal  and the judicial profession escape tarnished "images?"

Is the denial of fundamental Rights to the Defendant "frivolous?"

Is it  not better  to restore  fundamental Rights  than to have a

restless People  rise up?  Must we have "government of attorneys,

by attorneys,  and for  attorneys?"  Especially, after Watergate,

the People are not going to stand for it.

     It is  important to  note  that  the  Sixth  Amendment  word

"enjoy" follows  the word  "shall," and  it would  therefore be a

command of  the sovereign  power that  the ability  to enjoy  the

right to  Counsel is mandatory.  The words "shall ... enjoy" make

this very clear.


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 11 of 32


     The judgment as to what Counsel the Defendant can "enjoy" is

left entirely in his hands, and nowhere in the Sixth Amendment is

this prerogative given to the Courts;  it remains the fundamental

"Right" of the Defendant.

     RIGHT:  n. Conformity to the will of God, or to His law, the
     perfect standard  of  truth  and  justice  ...  Just  claim;
     immunity;   privilege.  All men have the right to the secure
     enjoyment of  life, personal  safety, liberty, and property.
     We deem  the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly
     in the case of crimes.

     The "right"  to "enjoy"  Counsel is  claimed by Defendant by

law,  nature,   and  tradition,  and  may  not  be  infringed  or

disparaged by  any private  association, its  members, or  by its

sympathizers employed  in government.   It  is a  right which the

People retained for themselves and it is to be protected by their

Judiciary.   It is  not a  function of  the  People's  Courts  to

protect the  vested interests  of any private monopoly as against

the rights  of The  Sovereign People.  Non-attorneys have as much

right to  speak for  a Defendant  in  Our  Courts  as  attorneys.

Otherwise, the  Courts are  run only  for "special interests" and

are, in  fact, protecting a monopoly, in violation of the Sherman

Anti-Trust Act.   Such  a monopoly  acts to  restrain  interstate

commerce and  to restrain  competition and  trade;  without  such

monopoly practices,  the cost  of justice  to The People would be

substantially lower.   Attorneys could still ply their trade, but

they would  have to  be competent  and  deserve  more  fully  the

business which  they would  acquire from  those  who  voluntarily

trusted them.

     ASSISTANCE:   on. Help;   aid;   furtherance;   succor;    a
     contribution of support in bodily strength or other means.


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 12 of 32


     The common understanding of the word "assistance" is that it

comes from  one who  acts in  a secondary capacity.  For example,

assistance is  given to  a President  by  a  Vice  President  who

"assists" him.  We find a definition of "assistant" which follows

the word "assistance."  The above mentioned dictionary defines an

assistant as  one who  serves in  a subordinate  position,  as  a

helper.   The common  practice today of the Defendant "assisting"

the defense attorney is one to which Defendant objects.  It is an

erosion of  the original  right which  this motion  is  aimed  at

reestablishing.   Defendant may also promote assistant Counsel to

co-Counsel wherein  they share  in the  defense and maintain that

such a  decision is  theirs, not  the Court's.   It  is theirs by

Common Law  and may  not be  denied or  infringed by  either  the

Courts or  the Bar  Association.   It is  also their  fundamental

Right.

     COUNSEL:   n. Advice;  opinion or instruction ...  Those who
     give counsel  in law;   any  counselor or  advocate, or  any
     number of  counselors, barristers,  or sergeants;    as  the
     plaintiff's counsel, or the defendant's counsel.

     COUNSELOR: Gan.   Any person who gives advice; ....  One who
     is consulted  by a  client in  a law  case;   one who  gives
     advice in  relation  to  a  question  of  law;    one  whose
     profession is  to give  advice in  law and manage causes for
     clients.

     If the  men who framed the Bill of Rights meant by "COUNSEL"

a licensed  attorney, they  would have  said "licensed attorney".

Surely, the  Court cannot  refuse to  recognize  this.    In  the

interest of fairness, let the Court grant the Defendant's motion.

     Neither the President of the United States nor the Governors

who head  the executive branches of government are required to be

attorneys in  order to  administer and enforce the laws.  Federal


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 13 of 32


judges are  not required  by the  U.S. Constitution,  or by valid

statute, to  be attorneys.    Congressmen,  Senators,  and  other

Legislators who  pass legislation,  statutes, and  "laws" do  not

have  to   be  "attorneys."    Magistrates  do  not  have  to  be

"attorneys."   Does it  not seem  strange that a Defendant cannot

represent himself  in Court  without being an "attorney?"  Are we

playing games with the meaning of "represent"?

     Why  then,   the  Defendant   asks,  must   the  Defendant's

representative in  Court be  a licensed  attorney?   Why must the

Defendant's representative  have a  title which the lawmaker, the

enforcer, the  federal law adjudicator, and the Defendant himself

do not  need?   Speak, Oh Learned Ones!  And please speak without

attempting to turn white into "black," and black into "white," as

the graduates of law schools seem so gifted at doing.  And please

speak without  being in  contempt of  the  Constitution  for  the

United States, as lawfully amended.


                                I

                 THE WILL OF THE SOVEREIGN POWER

     The U.S. Constitution is the will of The People, clearly set

down for  their agents, elected and appointed, to follow.  No law

supersedes the U.S. Constitution and only those in "pursuance" of

it may  stand.   Even treaties must be made "in Pursuance" of the

U.S. Constitution.

     We the  People ... do ordain and establish this Constitution
     for the  United States  of America.   Preamble  to the  U.S.
     Constitution (1789)

In establishing this government, the People said that:

     This Constitution,  and  the  Laws  ...  made  in  Pursuance
     thereof ...  shall be  the supreme  Law  of  the  Land  ....
     Article VI, Cl. 2, U.S. Constitution.


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 14 of 32


And they also commanded that:

     ... [A]ll  ... judicial  Officers, both of the United States
     and of  the several  States,  shall  be  bound  by  Oath  or
     Affirmation, to support this Constitution; ....  Article VI,
     Clause 3, U.S. Constitution

     It is  clearly the  will of the bar associations, not of the

People, to  close the  Courts to all but licensed attorneys.  Use

of the word "Counsel" rather than "attorneys" denotes the will of

the Sovereign Power, which cannot be lawfully overridden.

     In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who
     act through  the organs  established  by  the  Constitution.
     Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471;  Penhallow v. Doane's
     Administrators, 3  Dall. 54,  93;   McCullock v. Maryland, 4
     Wheat 316, 404, 405;  Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370;
     ... Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people
     to override  their will  as thus  declared.  Perry v. United
     States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)

     In the Sixth Amendment, the People declared their will as to

 the rights  of the Accused in all criminal prosecutions  and the

 right of  the Defendant  to "enjoy"  the "assistance of Counsel"

 was purposely  couched in  the Common Law term, "Counsel," so as

 to include  those friends  upon whom  Defendants may  depend for

 advice and protection.

     In a  speech by Judge Learned Hand at the Mayflower Hotel in

 Washington, D.C.,  on May 11, 1929, entitled, "Is There a Common

 Will?" in speaking of judges, he said:

     He is  not to  substitute even  his juster  will for theirs;
     otherwise it  would not be the "common will" which prevails,
     and to that extent, the people would not govern.

Defendant has  the right  to be  foolish as well as wise, and his

liberty is his to do with as he pleases.  To deny him his freedom

of choice  in this  matter of Counsel is unduly to interfere with

the defense,  and constitutes a denial of the will of The People,


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 15 of 32


========================================================================
Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S.    : Counselor at Law, federal witness
email:       [address in tool bar]   : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU
web site:  http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this
========================================================================


      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail