Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

I still do not get why students of the law and those that claim to be barristers / lawyers can't answer this question in particular.

If the "law" is missing the ENACTING CLAUSE as called for in the Constitution, is it a valid law?

For your reference:

Article III Section 6 of the Florida Constitution States the following:

Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

FL Constitution

reply to post by greenovni

I still do not get why students of the law and those that claim to be barristers / lawyers can't answer this question in particular.

If the "law" is missing the ENACTING CLAUSE as called for in the Constitution, is it a valid law?

My friend, I have steadfastly avoided answering this question, and I suppose I have not been clear in why. Let me try to clarify this now.

It seems to me, based upon reading the Chapter 61 and its insistence that is "chancery" is strong reason to challenge the subject matter of the jurisdiction outright. The problem with the "enacting clause" argument is that it is not a challenge of jurisdiction but quite the opposite. When you argue that there is no enacting clause you are necessarily granting jurisdiction to the legislation, and arguing that if there was an "enacting clause" then it would be valid. What I am trying to convey to you is that I don't see, in regards to you and your situation, where that legislation is valid.

You have to decide for yourself what your legal strategy is going to be, but whatever decision you make, it has to be clear. It cannot be a hodgepodge of legal arguments, this will get you no where. If you intend to challenge the jurisdiction, then in my opinion, the "enacting clause" is irrelevant.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

My friend, I have steadfastly avoided answering this question, and I suppose I have not been clear in why. Let me try to clarify this now.

It seems to me, based upon reading the Chapter 61 and its insistence that is "chancery" is strong reason to challenge the subject matter of the jurisdiction outright. The problem with the "enacting clause" argument is that it is not a challenge of jurisdiction but quite the opposite. When you argue that there is no enacting clause you are necessarily granting jurisdiction to the legislation, and arguing that if there was an "enacting clause" then it would be valid. What I am trying to convey to you is that I don't see, in regards to you and your situation, where that legislation is valid.

You have to decide for yourself what your legal strategy is going to be, but whatever decision you make, it has to be clear. It cannot be a hodgepodge of legal arguments, this will get you no where. If you intend to challenge the jurisdiction, then in my opinion, the "enacting clause" is irrelevant.

I would have no idea how to start challenging chancery and the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of the enacting clause is already at the court house.

Where can I find more information about chancery so I can write yet another motion in case the one I threw in gets denied?

Originally posted by greenovni
I still do not get why students of the law and those that claim to be barristers / lawyers can't answer this question in particular.

If the "law" is missing the ENACTING CLAUSE as called for in the Constitution, is it a valid law?

If your reference to "those that claim to be barristers" that "can't answer this question in particular" is a reference to me, then I'd like to point out that you posted that question less than an hour ago and sent me a U2U after that. The fact that I didn't respond to your question within minutes is hardly a sign that people are unable to answer it... With points like that, a judge in English court would soon form a rather strong view about the merits of your position.

Having said that, your question is about the law of Florida. My point was about (and my expertise is in relation to) the laws of England. Those laws are different - although they have some similarities.

To answer your question, I would expect a lawyer in Florida would want to identify the PRECISE statute that formed the basis of the (criminal? civil?) claim against you and whether it did in fact omit any relevant necessary clause.

Can you specify the PRECISE statute you want to discuss?

The more general points taken in this thread about the views of "Freemen" are, as a matter of English law, basically nonsense. Several of the videos in this thread are basically a farce, with people that clearly don't know the meaning of the legal terms they are using to the Court almost at random (which, not surprisingly, caused the low level judges involved some puzzlement as to what was being said).

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by greenovni


"Chancery" was not defined by either Part I, or Part II of Chapter 61 which doesn't mean that buried somewhere there in a Florida statute there isn't a legislative definition of the term. I would suggest first attempting to find if the Florida legislature has defined 'chancery". If there is not statutory definition, then this forces you to turn to the ordinary usage of the word.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

www.thefreedictionary.com...

www.duhaime.org...

law.yourdictionary.com...

I do not know why the State Constitution of Florida would insist on an "enacting clause" and then legislatures ignore this and pass legislation without it, but if they are doing so, I would not assume this is out of incompetence, and that some legal loophole has been found regarding this strange defiance. I can't help but suspect that this loophole lies in what I suggested, that it is a Catch 22 of a trap, and by arguing the legislation is unconstitutional because it lacks an "enacting clause" is the same as saying that had the "enacting clause" been included then the legislation would be valid.

You have read my posts in your thread. I have steadfastly argued that legislation is not law, merely evidence of law, and it doesn't matter if such legislation comes with an "enacting clause" or not, if the legislation is not valid, and "enacting clause" will not make it any more valid.

Originally posted by greenovni
I still do not get why students of the law and those that claim to be barristers / lawyers can't answer this question in particular.

If the "law" is missing the ENACTING CLAUSE as called for in the Constitution, is it a valid law?

For your reference:

Article III Section 6 of the Florida Constitution States the following:

Every law shall embrace but one subject and matter properly connected therewith, and the subject shall be briefly expressed in the title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title only. Laws to revise or amend shall set out in full the revised or amended act, section, subsection or paragraph of a subsection. The enacting clause of every law shall read: “Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:”.

FL Constitution

Hey greenovni,

as I had asked before, are the relevant provisions not actually part of the text of the state constitution? You would have to ask someone familiar with Florida constitutional law to know for 100% certain but if it is, I imagine you would have a very difficult time trying to refute the validity of the code in question. If you were to do so, then by application of logic, much of Florida's civil code would be without legal effect.

I feel that that is a very, very tall order.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by greenovni

 

If your reference to "those that claim to be barristers" that "can't answer this question in particular" is a reference to me, then I'd like to point out that you posted that question less than an hour ago and sent me a U2U after that. The fact that I didn't respond to your question within minutes is hardly a sign that people are unable to answer it... With points like that, a judge in English court would soon form a rather strong view about the merits of your position.

The barrister reference was not to you. We have had may barristers / lawyers (or those who simply act like them on forums) in these past 25 pages and unfortunately no one has been able to answer that question.

I did talk to my 'florida representative' who said that the law must be written according to constitutional mandates and if it deviates from that, the law is void.

Whether it will fly in court or not, it another story.

Sorry if I offended you in any way. If you read all my posts in this thread or any thread that I've participated on, you'll see that that is not my demeanor.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by greenovni

 

"Chancery" was not defined by either Part I, or Part II of Chapter 61 which doesn't mean that buried somewhere there in a Florida statute there isn't a legislative definition of the term. I would suggest first attempting to find if the Florida legislature has defined 'chancery". If there is not statutory definition, then this forces you to turn to the ordinary usage of the word.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

www.thefreedictionary.com...

www.duhaime.org...

law.yourdictionary.com...

I do not know why the State Constitution of Florida would insist on an "enacting clause" and then legislatures ignore this and pass legislation without it, but if they are doing so, I would not assume this is out of incompetence, and that some legal loophole has been found regarding this strange defiance. I can't help but suspect that this loophole lies in what I suggested, that it is a Catch 22 of a trap, and by arguing the legislation is unconstitutional because it lacks an "enacting clause" is the same as saying that had the "enacting clause" been included then the legislation would be valid.

You have read my posts in your thread. I have steadfastly argued that legislation is not law, merely evidence of law, and it doesn't matter if such legislation comes with an "enacting clause" or not, if the legislation is not valid, and "enacting clause" will not make it any more valid.

I hear you brother, off to the law library in the morning. Will let you know what I find.

reply to post by duality90

Hey greenovni,

as I had asked before, are the relevant provisions not actually part of the text of the state constitution? You would have to ask someone familiar with Florida constitutional law to know for 100% certain but if it is, I imagine you would have a very difficult time trying to refute the validity of the code in question. If you were to do so, then by application of logic, much of Florida's civil code would be without legal effect.

I feel that that is a very, very tall order.

That is exactly the problem, if I'm correct and am able to prove so with a judge that actually stands under his oath of office which in part reads: "to uphold and protect the Constitution of Florida".

Then that means that every single Florida statute is void as they are all missing their enacting clauses and I have found case law that support my position including supreme court of the US.

That is a scary situation because people who are in prison for actual crimes can then latch on and say that the law is void and any judgment entered against them is also void.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I do not know why the State Constitution of Florida would insist on an "enacting clause" and then legislatures ignore this and pass legislation without it,

It is not only the Constitution of Florida, this is almost every single constitution like:

North Carolina
Enacting Clause

That clause of an act that formally expresses the legislative sanction. In North Carolina the constitutionally required enacting clause reads, “The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:”

and 46 other States call for an enacting clause on theor statutes and laws.

Taking a look at JOINER v. THE STATE. 24057. (223 Ga. 367) (155 SE2d 8) (1967)

We can readily see that a missing enacting clause renders the law void.

This purported amendment contains no enacting clause and the question arises whether this omission invalidates this purported amendment so that the Appellate Practice Act of 1965, as previously amended, remains unchanged by it.

The necessity for an enacting clause in an Act of the General Assembly has never been decided directly by this court but in Walden v. Town of Whigham, 120 Ga. 646, 647 (48 SE 159), the court refused to give effect to a purported charter amendment of that town because the amendatory measure contained no enacting clause whatever and consisted merely of the caption of the Act and a repealing clause. This case was later distinguished in Fowler v. Stone, 149 Ga. 125 (99 SE 291), because the Act there involved was held to contain an enacting clause.
Accordingly, we hold that the "Appellate Practice Act of 1965 Amended. No. 114 (House Bill No. 157)," is a nullity and of no force and effect as law.

A few court cases dealing directly with enacting clauses

Here is a ton of countries that clearly call for enacting clauses including the district of columbia

Enacting Clauses

As we see from all of the research, enacting clauses are called by 96 States, the district of columbia and many other countries.

It is an integral part of the law itself and without it, we the people, do not know under what authority the law was written which makes the law void.

A state code is just the code itself. The actual laws are usually called something else. In my state, Session Laws. The bills as passed by the Lege.

"The enacting clause is the beginning language of each bill in the House or Senate: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled... that gives the force of law to bills approved by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President or approved by overriding his veto. If a motion is made and carried to "strike the enacting clause" of a bill, it has the effect of killing the measure."

Here, we see that when the legislature wants to kill a measure they simpky "strike the enacting clause" which has the effect of killing the measure. In other words, by striking the enacting clause the law becomes void and in effect, any judgment rendered is void.

reply to post by greenovni


I find it very odd there aren't any lawyers and judges who can think for themselves, bringing these valid and important issues to the public eye.....

reply to post by greenovni


Here is the point I am trying to make to you, brother; this "enacting clause" is a technicality. If an act of legislation is void merely due to a technicality does that mean that it would be valid with the "enacting clasue" attached to it?

Would an act of legislation requiring that parents kill their first born child be valid if it comes with an "enacting clause"

Do you understand?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by greenovni

 

Here is the point I am trying to make to you, brother; this "enacting clause" is a technicality. If an act of legislation is void merely due to a technicality does that mean that it would be valid with the "enacting clasue" attached to it?

Would an act of legislation requiring that parents kill their first born child be valid if it comes with an "enacting clause"

Do you understand?

I hear you loud and clear brother, remember that I just started getting my freedom back and am in training. I have learned the difference between law (harm no one) and legislative acts.

BUT if I can beat them with their own "laws" and procedures while I learn to become a ninja like yourself, am I wrong to try it out?

Remember, standing up for one's right, specially to a newbie is a scary thing when done for the first time.

The important thing is that I am learning, that I am now starting to shed the shackles and that I am sucking it up, standing out there and claiming my freedom for all of us.

I have read everything you have shown me, it is not clear in my head how to put it to work yet.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by greenovni

 

I find it very odd there aren't any lawyers and judges who can think for themselves, bringing these valid and important issues to the public eye.....

Then we, the people must stand up and think for ourselves as well as do for our freedoms. What I find funny is that the more research I do into the missing enacting clause the more I think that this was intentionally left open for those who "saw".

reply to post by greenovni

BUT if I can beat them with their own "laws" and procedures while I learn to become a ninja like yourself, am I wrong to try it out?

No, of course it is not wrong. Just make damn sure you understand the weapons you are using, and how they work, so they do not backfire on you.

I only wanted to make sure you were understanding the principle by which I was operating under regarding "enacting clause".

I know full well how frightening it is to face the monstrosity of the state. Of course, this is the beauty of the poetry behind the The 23rd Psalm.

Hang in there, brother. You'll be fine. I have no doubt.

reply to post by greenovni


The more stuff I find out, the more insane I feel lol. Or maybe I am starting to feel normal, and it is the frikken world that is nuts.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes, I think these are some powerful weapons. I have latched to the enacting clause because when I started doing research at the law library, I came across the enacting clause in the Florida constitution, I then went to the law librarian who happens to hold a Phd in law and asked her if she had information on the enacting clause of Florida, she looked at me like she was lost.

I then showed her the Florida Constitution, Article III Section 6 with the enacting clause and she said that she has never read the FL constitution before and was amused by this enacting clause thing.

I then told her that my view was that a statute which is different from an actual law is missing the enacting clause, the law is a nullity.

Her demeanor changed from amused to "lets find out" and she is as curious as I am, I have showed her all my legal research and she has helped with some.

We both agree that an enacting clause that is missing, making the law void would be a "catastrophe on the legal system"

This is the only "out" I see so far in my case that I can present to the court in a nice way.

If you have any other research materials, links or information that you can share, I would love to have it via PM as this case has screwed up my life since 1989...

Now, check this out!

LONDON DOCK BILL KILLED; House Strikes Out Enacting Clause, 129 Ayes to 138 Nays.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9. -- The London Dock bill was debated, voted upon, and defeated in the House to-day. This was effected by striking out the enacting clause. The vote was 129 in the affirmative and 138 in the negative. It is a victory for the shipping interests of the country as against their customers.

This was effected by striking out the enacting clause... So in effect, lawmakers kill a law by striking out the enacting clause, and this is from 1902! (according to the date in the article)

Here we find the Illinois GUIDE TO DRAFTING LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS

ENACTING CLAUSE

A bill without an enacting clause or with a defective one is probably unconstitutional. Ill. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 8; 1910 Op. Atty. Gen., p. 77.

Straight from a .gov website that clearly states the constitutional defect of a law without an enacting clause.

Originally posted by greenovni
The barrister reference was not to you. We have had may barristers / lawyers (or those who simply act like them on forums) in these past 25 pages and unfortunately no one has been able to answer that question.

Ok, no problem. Thanks for the clarification.

While I was happy to comment on the general points made by Freemen in relation to English law and the videos that have appeared in this thread of appearances before an English court, I don't think it would be sensible for me to comment on the specific point you raise regarding the constitution of Florida (other than to suggest seeking professional advice - possibly seeking a free consultation or contacting a relevant charity/organisation). It's a bit outside the jurisdiction I deal with...

However, as I mentioned above, I would expect a lawyer in Florida would begin by identifying the SPECIFIC statute relevant to the claim against you and check the basic point underlying your argument, i.e. whether a COMPLETE copy of that statute does indeed omit the enacting clause. In relation to English statutes, you sometimes see free websites which contain the main parts of statutes but omit some of the somewhat confusing legal verbiage which does appear before the main parts.

All the best,

Isaac