"statutory law"

#1 04-11-2004, 10:45 AM

Several members have expressed a court’s insistence that the judge is acting under "statutory" law. Well, let’s run with that. (All definitions from Bouvier)

STATUTE. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms prescribed in the constitution; an act of the legislature.

Okay. I can see why judges would believe this.

This word is used in contradistinction to the common law. Statutes acquire their force from the time of their passage unless otherwise provided.

Right. The judge sees his role as enforcing the stated "law," not adhering to "common law." That’s okay.

It is a general rule that when the provision of a statute is general, everything which is necessary to make such provision effectual is supplied by the common law;… and when a power is given by statute, everything necessary for making it effectual is given by implication:

No worries here. Seems the judge is acting under the "presumption" that the "common law" is indeed an inherent consideration of the "statutory law."

Statutes are of several kinds; namely, Public or private.

Public statutes are those of which the judges will take notice without pleading; as, those which concern all officers in general; acts concerning trade in general or any specific trade; acts concerning all persons generally.

Ah. "Concerning all persons generally." There’s his assumed authority. I’ll give him that. Ain’t gonna quibble about definitions. His mind is made up. Don’t confuse him with facts.

Affirmative or negative.

An affirmative statute is one which is enacted in affirmative terms; such a statute does not take away the common law. If, for example, a statute without negative words, declares that when certain requisites shall have been complied with, deeds shall, have in evidence a certain effect, this does not prevent their being used in evidence, though the requisites have not been complied with, in the same manner as they might have been before the statute was passed.&

Ah. "Affirmative." As in, "Thou shalt pay taxes." Hell, even I can understand that.

A&negative statute is one expressed in negative terms, and so controls the common law, that it has no force in opposition to the statute.&

Okay. "Thou shalt not speed." That’s easy.

AFFIRMATIVE. Averring a fact to be true; that which is opposed to negative. (q.v.) 2. It is a general rule of evidence that the affirmative of the issue must be proved.& 3. But when the law requires a person to do an act, and the neglect of it, will render him guilty and punishable, the negative must be proved, because every man is presumed to do his duty and in that case they who affirm he did not, must prove it.

Yeah. I like affirmative statutes. The "presumption" is that every man has done is duty. It must be proven he did not.

NEGATIVE STATUTE. One which is enacted in negative terms, and which so controls the common law, that it has no force in opposition to the statute.

"Thou shalt not kill." That’s negative.
So "they" have to prove you did NOT do the "affirmative" statues but DID do the "negative." Beginning to think our "statutory law" is straight from the Bible.

PARTIES TO ACTIONS. Those persons who institute actions for the recovery of their rights, and those persons against whom they are instituted, are the parties to the actions; the former are called plaintiffs, and the latter, defendants. The term parties is understood to include all persons who are directly interested in the subject-matter in issue, who have right to make defence, control the proceeding, or appeal from the judgment.

It is of the utmost importance in bringing actions to have proper parties, for however just and meritorious the claim may be, if a mistake has been made in making wrong persons, either plaintiffs or defendants, or including too many or too few persons as parties, the plaintiff may in general be defeated.

"All persons." Wow. That can be a lot of "persons" in matters like an income tax. OR credit card debt!

Actions are naturally divided into those which arise upon contracts, and those which do not, but accrue to the plaintiff in consequence of some wrong or injury committed by the defendant. This article will therefore be divided into two parts, under which will be briefly considered, first, the parties to actions arising upon contracts; and, secondly, the parties to actions arising upon injuries or wrongs, unconnected with contracts, committed b the defendant.

I’m interested in the "no contract" stuff. Ain’t gonna quibble with the "state" about this.&

PARTIES TO A SUIT IN EQUITY. The person who seeks a remedy in chancery by suit, commonly called a plaintiff, and the person against whom the remedy is sought, usually denominated the defendant, are the parties to a suit in equity. 2. It is of the utmost importance, that there should be proper parties; and therefore no rules connected with the science of equity pleading, are so necessary to be attentively considered and observed, as those which relate to the persons who are to be made parties to a suit, for when a mistake in this respect is discovered at the hearing of the cause, it may sometimes be attended with defeat, and will, at least, be followed by delay and expense.

The government, or as the style is in England, the crown) may sue in a court of equity, not only in suits strictly on behalf of the government, for its own peculiar rights and interest, but also on behalf of the rights and interest of those, who partake of its prerogatives, or claim its peculiar protection.

Such suits are usually brought by the attorney general.

As to the number of parties. It is a general rule that every person who is at all interested in the subject-matter of the suit, must be made a party. It is, the constant aim of a court of equity, to do complete justice by deciding upon and settling the rights of all persons interested in the subject of the suit, to make the performance of the order of the court perfectly safe to those who are compelled to obey it, and, to prevent future litigation. For this purpose, all persons materially interested in the subject ought to be parties to the suit, plaintiffs or defendants, however numerous they may be, so that a complete decree may be made binding on those parties.

So, let's see:

The attorney general takes you to court for NOT paying taxes. The presumption is that you did, so they have to prove you did not. Furthermore, all those agents we've been dealing with over all these years MUST be made a party.&

Y'all know where this is going.

I would also assert that this is true for all other alleged debts, credit cards, etc.& Think of all the "persons" we have contact with regarding these alleged debts. Demand that each and every one of them be a "party" to the action.& Now that's a LOT of "parties," don't you think?

This has to do with another thread that I can't find. I.E., it's about "cause of action" and the notion that there must be an "injured party."& It's not enough to simply say "you broke the law," etc.& Some PERSON must be a "party" to it. Not just the ethereal "state" or "John's Credit Card Company."

Stuff like that. (Mostly thinking out loud here....)

Randy