William Michael Kemp, Sui Juris
c/o 2108 General Delivery
Gadsden, Alabama state
zip code exempt

In Propria Persona

Under Protest, Necessity,
and by Special Visitation

all rights reserved


                          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
          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


AUTHORITIES, filed  concurrently in  the instant  case with  said


     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

     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


  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).


     ... 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


     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


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

     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,
     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


  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

Foundation  for  American  Christian  Education,  San  Francisco,

California, Second Edition, 1980.

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

     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

     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

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

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

it is.

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

     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


     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


     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

     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.

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

     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

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.



     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,

from whom the Courts' authority is derived, and a substitution in

lieu thereof is being used -- that of the "will of attorneys."

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

     Bills of rights are, in their origin, reservations of rights
     not surrendered to the prince.  Hamilton, Federalist Papers,
     No. 84.

The right  to have  a "friend" plead one's case, or to assist one

in Court, is a Common Law right secured by the Sixth Amendment.

     History is  clear that  the  first  ten  amendments  to  the
     Constitution were  adopted  to  secure  certain  common  law
     rights  of  the  people  against  invasion  by  the  Federal
     Government.   Bell v.  Hood, 71  F.Supp.,  813,  816  (1947)
     U.S.D.C., So. Dist. Calif.

Our Founding  Fathers spoke  and wrote  in the  vernacular of the

Common Law, and "Counsel" was the word they chose.  The facts are

conclusive  on   this  point,   and  the   record  supports  this

contention.    Interpretation  of  the  word  "Counsel"  to  mean

"attorney only" is a departure from the safeguards of the Bill of


     The Bill of Rights was provided as a barrier, to protect the
     individual against  arbitrary exactions of ... legislatures,
     (and) courts  ... it  is  the  primary  distinction  between
     democratic and  totalitarian way.  Re Stoller, Supreme Court
     of Florida, en banc, 36 So.2d 443, 445 (1948).

A more  recent confirmation  of fundamental Rights of the Accused


     Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
     can be  no rule-making  or legislation  which would abrogate
     them.  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1968)

     Even though  the Miranda  decision  referred  to  the  Fifth

Amendment right in toto, the above stated principle is of general

application, wherein the word "rights" is not qualified.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 16 of 32


                        DEFENDANT'S RIGHT
                    TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

     In Tarlowski  supra, the Court said, in suppressing evidence

at the request of Tarlowski's motion:

     When a  federal official's  interference with  the right  of
     free association takes the form of limiting the ability of a
     criminal suspect  to consult  with and  be accompanied  by a
     person upon  whom he  relies for  advice and  protection, he
     gravely transgresses.   For  these reasons,  the  Motion  to
     suppress must be granted.

It was  in this  case that Tarlowski was denied the Counsel of an

accountant, not of a lawyer.

     Defendant has  a right  under the  First Amendment freely to

associate with  whom  he  pleases  in  his  defense  and  in  its

preparation and presentation, so long as such is respectful, with

decorum, and  without contempt  for orderly  rules  of  procedure

which do  not deprive  one  of  Rights  guaranteed  by  the  U.S.

Constitution.   To deny  this Right  is also  to deny  his  Fifth

Amendment Right  to Due  Process of  Law,  which  is  actually  a

guarantee of fundamental fairness.


                    FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES

    The First Amendment states, in pertinent part:

     Congress shall  make no  law ...  abridging ... the right of
     the people  ... to  petition the Government for a redress of

Defendant asks,  "How can I maintain my maximum Right to petition

for redress  of grievances, if that person whom I choose to speak

for me is not permitted to do so?"

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 17 of 32

     If Congress  passes a  statute requiring  a federal court to

abide a  statute of  the State in which it sits, and said statute

of a  state purports  to make  it a  crime for  a Defendant to be

represented by a non-attorney, then Congress has effectively done

not only  what the U.S. Constitution does not authorize it to do,

but it has done what is also expressly forbidden.

     If such  is the  case, then  Congress has made a "law" which

frustrates the  Right of  The  People,  and  the  Defendant,  "to

petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

     Of what  use  is  the  Right  to  Petition  for  Redress  of

Grievances,  if   the  Defendant  is  personally  handicapped  by

government?    This  handicap arises  because the Defendant needs

assistance in  his petitioning,  and yet  he is  limited by a bar

association, or  a state,  or a court which says that a competent

"friend" cannot  be permitted to speak for the Petitioner because

said "friend"  has not been brainwashed in certain "approved" law

schools.   It is  in such law schools that the deprivation of the

fundamental Rights,  although set  forth in plain and unambiguous

language  in  the  U.S.  Constitution  itself,  is  not  "settled

doctrine." despite the criminal prohibition at 18 U.S.C. 242.

     The "licensed attorneys" and "attorney-judges" say that "The

Constitution is  what the Supreme Court says it is."  What if the

Congress passes  a law  saying that  any bureaucrat  can rape any

layman's wife  and the Supreme Court says, "Yes, that's perfectly

in harmony with the Constitution?"

     Then, are we The People to stand for it?  Who gave them said

authority?   Now, what  should The  People do  who  have  such  a

Congress and  such a  Supreme Court?   Are the lower court judges

brave enough  to challenge  it, or are they "bound" to follow the

higher Court judges?

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 18 of 32

     And where  is the  member of the bar, the licensed attorney,

who now  steps forward  and announces  that the  Supreme Court is

mistaken?   Where does  his license  go to?  Now, who is going to

permit him  to appear in Court if he doesn't buckle down and stop

rocking the establishment?

     Obviously, an  extreme example  has been  used;   but it  is

significant.   Laymen would  not have to stand for such nonsense.

Licensed attorneys ... who knows?

     That  laymen   should  be  subjected  to  a  "drifting"  and

"unstable" Constitution -- which happens to be what some justices

"think it  is" at the moment -- can be very frustrating, and that

a jury  cannot hear  a "Counsel"  who is  not beholden  to such a

damnable floating  doctrine, are indeed a denial of "the Right to

Petition (effectively)  for Redress  of Grievances."  To preserve

justice, to  preserve the  semblance  of  a  fair  trial  and  an

impartial  jury,  let  the  Defendant  petition  for  Redress  of

Grievances to  the jury  through "Counsel  of his choice," who is

not beholden  to  a  corrupt  and  degenerate  system  which  has

perverted the  very Law by which it pretends to rule and which it

pretends to protect and uphold.

     Defendant believes  that true religion guarantees freedom of

choice, or  freedom to  choose, to  elect, and  to select, taking

responsibility for the consequences of said choices.

     Defendant further  believes that  he has  the right  to help

others and, in turn, to be helped by those willing voluntarily to

answer his  call for  assistance.   In this case, he particularly

means in  the Courtroom  where a  hostile government is violating

its own  laws and  trampling upon  the Rights  of  the  Sovereign

People, which its officers are sworn to protect.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 19 of 32

     When all  the mighty  force of an all powerful government is

arrayed against  a lone  individual who  has the courage to point

out  the  government's  inequities,  said  individual  should  be

entitled, most  of  all,  to  the  protection  of  his  religious

convictions and rights.

     Under the  First Amendment,  the right of conscience and the

right to  believe, as  long as the same does not trample upon the

rights  of   others,  is   the  number  one  right  protected  by

government.  In pertinent part, the First Amendment states:

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....

Defendant's religious  conviction, again,  calls for freedom from

oppression  and   freedom  from  soul-stifling  special  interest

legislation slapped  on a  freedom-loving individual on behalf of

self-serving perpetrators  of special  advantages  to  the  legal

profession, at  the expense  of the long-suffering victims of the

same.  Let the legal profession compete like men with the Counsel

Defendant chooses for his defense, and for the proper exercise of

his religious  Rights, chief  among which  is the  freedom of any

choice which does not trample upon the Rights of others.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 20 of 32



     Defendant's  right  to  equal  protection  of  the  laws  is

guaranteed through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment:

     The due  process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees to
     each citizen  the equal protection of the laws and prohibits
     a denial  thereof by  any  Federal  official.    Bolling  v.
     Sharpe, 327 U.S. 497

Defendant asks  the Court  to take  Judicial Notice of an article

from Newsweek, September 2, 1974, which tells how a layman, James

Yager, handled the legal problems of 3,500 clients (see paragraph

1).   The same  paragraph also  speaks of  "His most recent court

appearance," which  took place  in Atlanta.    It  describes  how

"Yager paced the courtroom floor," as he addressed the jury.  Mr.

Yager is engaging in the practice of law, which is his Right as a

Layman, or  laymen, to  assist him  in his  defense, if  they  so

desire.   To deny  this motion  is to  give prisoners more Rights

than to  a Free and Natural Person.  Such inequity before the law

is intolerable.

     Said article mentions various others who have adopted law as

an avocation  and goes  on to mention a Mr. Green, another former

inmate now  on parole,  and says that:  "Green is a familiar face

in the Boston courtrooms, where he maintains his legal activities

by submitting  amicus briefs  for other  felons."   It  would  be

interesting to  know if  Mr. Green and Yeager, like Mr. Jefferson

and James  X, are  also black  men, and if therefore, fundamental

Rights are only available to black men.

     In both United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389

U.S. 217,  and NAACP  v.  Button,  371  U.S.  415,  and  also  in

Brotherhood of  Railhood Trainmen v. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S.

1 (1964),  it was  held  that  a  State  may  not  pass  statutes

prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law or to interfere with

the Right to freedom of speech, secured by the First Amendment.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 21 of 32

     Defendant is  entitled to  equal protection  of the laws and

that includes his right to speak through whom he pleases, when he

pleases.   The only  reasonable condition  is that the decorum of

the Court and the rules not in conflict with individual Rights be

maintained;   otherwise there  can be  no valid  denial  of  this

inalienable and legal Right.  Defendant is agreeable to this, and

has every  intention of  obeying the proper rules and maintaining

the decorum of the Court.  To do otherwise is unthinkable.

     Defendant herein  also believes  that it  is  vital  to  his

defense to  seek whatever assistance he can trust, and that if he

decides to  be assisted by either licensed or unlicensed Counsel,

he has  every Right  to do  so.  If the Defendant believes that a

combination of  both may  be to  his advantage,  to deny him this

Right would constitute an unreasonable and arbitrary interference

with his defense, by denying him his fundamental Rights freely to

associate with  whom he  chooses;   to freedom  of  speech;    to

freedom to Petition for Redress of Grievances;  and his religious

Right of conscience and freedom of choice, without which religion

is worth but little.

     Defendant also  asks the  Court to take Judicial Notice that

other Defendants  in criminal  cases are  allowed to  plan  their

defenses without interference by the Courts, and Defendant herein

claims that same Right.

     Surely, we  cannot  have  special  laws  for  attorneys  and

special grants  of privilege  to them  as a class when these very

same  privileges   are  denied   all   other   citizens.      The

Constitutional prohibitions against Titles of Nobility in Article

I, Section 9, clause 7, and in the original Thirteenth Amendment,

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 22 of 32

are  violated   when  "attorney"   becomes  a  Title  of  special

privileges, i.e.  "Nobility."   We must  all have equal access to

the Courts.   Presently,  only those attorneys have access to the

Courts whom  the Courts  approve and, as a result, all "approved"

attorneys are considered Officers of the Court.

     Where does  the defendant  go when  he does  not wish  to be

defended by  an Officer  of the  Court?   To use the power of the

Court to  force the  defense to retain an Officer of the Court at

the defense  table offends  the sensibilities of the Defendant to

the very  core.   Defendant may  wish voluntarily  to  select  an

attorney among  his Counsels, but this Defendant believes that he

should not  be forced  to do  so.   Defendant is  simply  seeking

freedom of  choice in the matter of whether he has no Counsel and

represents himself,  or uses  licensed legal  Counsel (attorney),

mixed Counsel (attorneys and laymen) or lay Counsel only.

     The "stealthy  encroachment" upon  Defendant's  Right  to  a

Counsel who  is not  licensed by  the Bar  is  the  result  of  a

monopoly  of   the  legal  establishment,  both  in  and  out  of

government, State and Federal, to "protect" their "price fixing";

to maintain  artificially high legal fees;  to educate the chosen

few in  law schools  maintained largely  at public  expense;   to

protect attorneys  from competition  from  those  who  know  that

attorneys have  obstructed the  U.S. Constitution  and  left  the

People at  the mercy  of a  swarm  of  bureaucrats  with  endless

attorney-promoted regulations and laws which make "crimes" out of

the exercise  of natural  and Constitutionally  protected Rights,

wherein the  attorney-controlled  government  can  prosecute  the

Sovereign Citizen  and force  him into  the waiting, outstretched

arms  of  his  attorney  "brotherhood,"  who  will  "advise"  and

"defend" him for a considerable fee.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 23 of 32

     Little wonder  that People  are fed  up with  the profession

when it  is full  of licensed  "Haldemans, Erlichmans, Mitchells,

and  Deans."    Little  wonder  many  People  almost  vomit  when

contemplating what  attorneys have  done  to  this  once  mighty,

powerful, and independent Republic.

     Legal fees  come too  high for  many average Citizens.  Yet,

the same  average Citizen  cannot turn  to laymen who may be well

versed in the necessary legal area, and this restricts the Courts

to attorneys  and those  who can  afford them.  Laymen who cannot

afford attorneys  must suffer  along as  best they can.  It is as

unjust a  system of  justice as one could conjure up.  Of course,

some persons  may qualify  for a  Public Defender.   That is like

being alone in a pit of cobras, and someone comes along and wants

to throw  in another  cobra.   Under those circumstances, what is

needed is  a mongoose  (read "Counsel  of Choice"),  not  another

cobra.  Perhaps the STAR CHAMBERS weren't so bad after all.



     Defendant has  not only  the Right to speak for himself, but

also to  speak through  whom he pleases.  This is inherent in the

First Amendment  Right to  freedom of  speech.   It is also self-

evident as  a part  of the Natural Rights Doctrine.  Those Rights

which are  called inherent  and inalienable  are outlined  in the

Declaration of  Independence,  which  antedates  all  government.

They are  natural or  God-given,  rather  than  government-given,

rights.   Defendant  points  out  that  he  does  not  claim  any

"attorney-given" rights,  but demands that his God-given, Natural

Rights not be infringed upon.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 24 of 32

     This  fundamental  Right  of  freedom  of  speech  has  been

referred to  previously, but  Defendant  wishes  to  set  it  out

separately to  emphasize it to the Court, and herein refers again

to United  Mine Workers  v. Illinois Bar Association supra, NAACP

v. Button  supra, and  the Brotherhood  of Railroad  Trainmen  v.

Virginia State Bar supra, in support of said Right.

     It is  indicative that  the words  in  the  First  Amendment

embrace freedom "of" speech, and not just freedom "to" speak, and

while Defendant does not wish to prolong this Brief by a detailed

discussion of  the difference  between the  two terms,  he simply

wishes to  bring  to  the  Court's  attention  that  there  is  a

difference, and that its application is obvious.



     Defendant's request  for the Court to recognize his Right to

non-attorney Counsel  in lieu  of, or  in addition  to,  attorney

Counsel, would  mean that  the Court  would have  to rule  during

trial on  a motion  regarding Defendant's  Right to  non-attorney

assistance, including that of assistant spokesman.

     If presiding Judge of this Honorable Court has, in the past,

ever been  a member  of any  Bar Association or is, at present, a

member of  a Bar  Association, or has close friends or associates

connected  with  a  Bar  Association,  then  Defendant  finds  it

difficult  to   see  how  the  Court  could  possibly  render  an

unprejudiced and impartial ruling on Defendant's motion regarding

his Right to non-attorney Counsel.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 25 of 32

     It appears  to Defendant that the Court would find itself at

variance with  his own  standards, mainly the Cannons of Judicial

Ethics, No. 29, which states:

     A judge should abstain from performing or taking part in any
     judicial act  in which  his personal interests are involved.
     If he  has a personal litigation in the court of which he is
     judge, he need not resign his judgeship on that account, but
     he should,  of course, refrain from any judicial act in such

     It  is   apparent  to  the  Defendant  that  the  denial  of

Defendant's motion  herein would  call for  the thinking,  on the

part of  most reasonable  persons, that  the denial was based, at

least in  part, on a conflict of interest and upon a "hardship of

the case," meaning upon the unfortunate Bar Associations.

     Granting the  motion, however,  could not  be interpreted as

being a  conflict of  interest, but  rather, granting  the motion

would occur  despite personal  interest and in favor of fairness,

of due process, and the justice to which the Sovereign Citizen of

this Republic is entitled under the Sixth Amendment.



     The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

     The powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the
     Constitution, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power  to abrogate  the Rights  mentioned herein has not been

delegated to  the United States nor to any State through the U.S.

Constitution.  Such a power is an undelegated colorable "office."

     Nothing  in  the  U.S.  Constitution  of  this  Union  state

authorizes a  delegation of  power to  the state  to  thwart  and

frustrate the  foregoing  Rights,  i.e.  freedom  of  speech,  of

religion, of  assembly, of petitioning for redress of grievances,

of due  process, of the Right to contract, and of equal treatment

under the law.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 26 of 32

     Therefore, assuming  the foregoing is true, then the "power"

remains with  the People,  who are the Sovereigns in this country

as heretofore  pointed out.  Therefore, the Defendant retains the

power for  his choice  of a spokesman in Court, "any Thing in the

Constitution   or   Laws   of   any   State   to   the   Contrary

notwithstanding."   See Article VI, Clause 2.  Regardless of this

state's  statutes   or  any  arbitrary  rule  making,  it  cannot

invalidate the  Defendant's fundamental  Rights protected  by the

U.S. Constitution.    Said  pretended  right  to  "regulate"  the

"practice of law" must fall, or recede, when placed alongside the

Defendant's fundamental  Right to  a fair  trial by  an impartial

jury, with  due  process,  freedom  of  speech,  and  freedom  of

contract, as heretofore demonstrated.

     It is  impossible to  delegate to  another  that  which  the

delegator does  not himself possess.  Defendant does not have the

right to  compel the  inadequate representation  of another  and,

therefore,  this  Defendant  is  powerless  to  delegate  such  a

tyrannical power  to a  legislature, whether or not controlled by

attorneys or any Bar association.

     To summarize  the foregoing,  the Tenth  Amendment prohibits

this  State   and  its   Courts  from   restricting   Defendant's

fundamental Right  to a  non-attorney spokesman  in court.   Such

power is  not given  to the  State by  either the  U.S. or by the

State Constitutions.   Therefore, in civil cases, the Legislature

has usurped, at the prodding of attorneys, the so-called Right to

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 27 of 32

institute a  statute prohibiting  a Defendant,  in a  prosecution

against him  by his  government, from  relying upon  a  preferred

spokesman of  trust and  confidence.  In criminal cases, there is

no valid  reason, statute,  or Court  ruling that  can alter  the

fundamental Right  to Counsel,  and the  Courts, in  denying said

spokesman, are arbitrarily usurping Defendant's Right.

     The Ninth  Amendment  reserves  all  non-enumerated  Rights.

They are  not to  be denied or disparaged, though not enumerated.

The mention  and enumeration  of the  Right to  Counsel under the

Supreme authority  of the  Sixth Amendment cannot be construed to

deny or disparage the Right to that Counsel being a non-attorney,

or a  non-member of  any Bar  Association licensed  to only  plea

bargain and lose.

     It would  appear  that  any  decent  person  would  have  no

difficulty agreeing  with the  above, and  that any  other ruling

would indeed be "frivolous" and without constitutional authority.

     Again, imposing restrictions on Defendant's Counsel violates

and circumvents Defendant's Fifth Amendment Rights.  In addition,

it imposes  cruel and  unusual punishment  upon the  Defendant by

forcing him  to seek  legal assistance,  when and if he needs it,

from those whom he either does not trust or cannot afford.


                      VIOLATES CIVIL RIGHTS

     Denial of  Defendant's desire  for  a  non-attorney  of  his

choice is  also a  deprivation of his Civil Rights under color of

law, in  violation of Defendant's fundamental Rights as protected

by 42  U.S.C. 1983,  1985, and  1986.   See Owens  v. The City of


  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 28 of 32


     Any denial of Counsel is an attempt to accomplish that which

is specifically  prohibited by  the Sixth  Amendment.   The Right

recognized  therein   says  nothing  about  only  "court-approved

counsel," and  that fundamental  Right is  in no way qualified or


     The U.S. Supreme Court held in Miller v. Milwaukee, 272 U.S.

713, 715,  that if  a statute  is part  of an  unlawful scheme to

reach a  prohibited result, then "... the statute must fail ...."

This was again upheld in McCallen v. Massachusetts, 279 U.S. 620,

630.  Legislators, whether Federal or State, may not restrict the

Courts only to attorneys in order to deny effective assistance of

Counsel to  any Defendant  who evinces a desire to be represented

or  assisted   by  a   "friend,"  in  preference  to  a  licensed

"attorney."   What cannot  be done  by the  front door  cannot be

lawfully done by way of the back door.

     Legislators who  pass laws  do not have to be attorneys, nor

do  those   who  execute   the  law,  i.e.  Sheriffs,  Governors,

Presidents, etc.   Even  the Justices  of the  U.S. Supreme Court

need not  be licensed  attorneys.   To exclude  the  People  from

defending their  "friends" in the Courts turns said Courts into a

playground  for   the  legal  establishment,  and  is  a  blatant

violation of  the Defendant's  fundamental Right  to  Counsel  of

choice, due  process of  law, and equal protection under the law.

Justice Brandeis said:

     Discrimination  is  the  act  of  treating  differently  two
     persons or  things under  like circumstances.  National Life
     Insurance Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 508, 630.

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 29 of 32

     As far  back as  1886, the  U.S. Supreme Court was concerned

with the  unjust and  illegal discriminations  which were running

rampant.   The  Court  frowned  upon  law  administered  with  an

"unequal hand":

     ...  [S]o   as  practically   to  make  unjust  and  illegal
     discrimination  between  persons  in  similar  circumstances
     material to  their rights,  the denial  of equal  justice is
     still within  the prohibition  of the Constitution.  Yick Wo
     v. Hopkins supra.

Therefore, the  Courts cannot  be the  exclusive territory  of  a

legal "elite corps," but must be open to all the Sovereign People

alike --  on an  equal basis,  providing due  process of  Law and

equal protection under that Law.

     The Ninth  and Tenth  Amendments also prohibit the denial of

Counsel of  choice.   Nowhere has  Defendant or  his predecessors

delegated such  restrictive powers to the United States or to any

of the  Union states,  and if  the Court will closely examine the

Ninth and  Tenth Amendments,  it will  find  that  the  Right  to

Counsel of  choice, such  as Defendant  herein  claims,  is  also

secured in  the penumbra  of these  Amendments, particularly  the

Ninth Amendment,  which is protected in the states.  Roe v. Wade,

41 L.W.  4213 (1973);  Shapiro v. U.S., 641, 394 U.S. 618 (1966);

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1964).

     Speaking of  controlling constitutional  law, as  opposed to

mere statute law, Chief Justice Marshall said:

     Those  then,   who  controvert   this  principle,  that  the
     Constitution is  to be  considered in  court as  a paramount
     law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts
     must close  their eyes  on the Constitution and see only the

And the Court concluded that:

     This doctrine  would subvert  the  very  foundation  of  all
     written constitutions.  Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 30 of 32

     The United  States Supreme  Court also  pointed out  in this

decision that, in declaring what should be the supreme Law of the

Land, the  U.S. Constitution  itself was first mentioned and "...

not the laws of the United States generally ...."

     The attorneys  who sit  in Our State legislatures and in Our

Congress have  no right  to pass  laws which  infringe  upon,  or

abolish, Our  fundamental Rights  under the U.S. Constitution for

the United  States of  America, as  lawfully  amended,  and  such

unconstitutional laws  which purport  to do  so must  be declared

null and  void and  not binding  upon the Courts.  See Miranda v.

Arizona supra, at 491.


     The Undersigned  hereby certifies, under penalty of perjury,

under the  laws of  the United  States of  America,  without  the

"United States,"  that the  above statements of fact are true and

correct, to  the best  of My  current information, knowledge, and

belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Respectfully submitted this _______ day of _______________, 1996.

/s/ Richard Hayward
Richard Hamilton Hayward
Relator of Record

  Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus:  Page 31 of 32

                        PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Richard  Hamilton Hayward,  Sui Juris,  hereby certify,  under

penalty of  perjury, under  the laws  of  the  United  States  of

America, without the "United States", that I am at least 18 years

of age,  a Citizen  of one  of the  United States of America, and

that I personally served the following document(s):


by placing one true and correct copy of said document(s) in first

class United  States Mail,  with  postage  prepaid  and  properly

addressed to the following:

James E. Hedgspeth, Jr.
District Attorney
16th Judicial Circuit
Etowah County Offices
800 Forrest Avenue
Gadsden, Alabama state

Clerk of Court
Circuit Court of Etowah County
Etowah County Courthouse
800 Forrest Avenue
Gadsden, Alabama state

Executed on:

/s/ Richard Hayward
Richard Hamilton Hayward, Sui Juris
Relator of Record
all Rights reserved without prejudice

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

                             #  #  #

Return to the Table of Contents for

Alabama v. Kemp