How does one SUE the State of Maryland?

[tranquility]

I was actually reading this until Wayst Past's enacting clause theory came out.

Awesome! Check out for me if I have to pay income taxes or if Obama is president. I don't want either of those to be true and if I could find some loophole....

 

[JakeB]

Do any of theses purported laws have Enacting Clauses showing their authority?

The "laws" in the CALIFORNIA statutes do not show on their face the authority by which they were adopted and promulgated. There is nothing on their face which declares they should be law, or that they are of the proper legislative authority in this State.

Actually, every California bill that is signed into law has an enacting clause. You're wrong to assume that there was no enacting clause just because I didn't paste it into this thread, or because it may not be copied onto a website that lists California's statutes.

And, ironically, this perfectly leads us into your next misunderstanding:

Open Deering's first Penal code book you'll find a copyright in the inside cover. You cannot copyright a public law! This makes it a private law! The Session laws of California remain without privatization.

The laws themselves weren't copyrighted. The compilation of the laws into a book form was copyrighted. The compilation can be copyrighted because the arrangement and selection of what to include in the book meets the "originality" requirement of a copyright.

For example, the author may have decided to exclude a law's enacting clause.

But the copyright only covers the author's original contribution. It does not cover the facts or information conveyed (i.e. it does not cover the laws themselves).



.

 

[Wayst Past]

For example, the author may have decided to exclude a law's enacting clause.

But the copyright only covers the author's original contribution. It does not cover the facts or information conveyed (i.e. it does not cover the laws themselves).
.

No I'm sorry you are mistaken. The Enacting Clause must be on the FACE of every law! Publishing laws without the proper legislative requirements makes them only a "guideline for a suggestion of quality".

Please search your local law library and provide to your own eyes the enacting clause for the laws you so desperately cling too. Before you claim they exist. No, most people do not believe as I, but the literal meaning of laws is all we have.

The facts are: the copyright on the inside cover doesn't say "only the book form", it covers the whole book and all works therein. I'm sorry but it seems that you are defending improper legislative works.

 

[ecmst12]

You'll find copyright notices on cookbooks too, even though one can't copyright a recipe. The recipes themselves are not protected by the copyright, but the creative content from the author (descriptive text about the dishes, photos, artwork, etc) is protected. All that does NOT have to be described in the copyright notice on the inside cover; if a lawsuit were ever to be filed due to an alleged violation of the copyright, those details would be discussed in court. If the author were to try to sue for reprinting of a RECIPE ONLY, the defendent could easily have the suit thrown out. So as well, the author of the penal code book could not successfully sue someone for reprinting the laws in his book, but if there was commentary included, he COULD sue for reprinting that without permission.

There is a reason you need a license to practice law...

 

[You Are Guilty]

There is a reason you need a license to practice law...

And a reason why they shouldn't offer internet access at mental hospitals...

 

[JakeB]

No I'm sorry you are mistaken. The Enacting Clause must be on the FACE of every law! Publishing laws without the proper legislative requirements makes them only a "guideline for a suggestion of quality".

Please search your local law library and provide to your own eyes the enacting clause for the laws you so desperately cling too. Before you claim they exist. No, most people do not believe as I, but the literal meaning of laws is all we have.

You're more confused than I thought. Let's start at the beginning.

A law is created when the legislature passes a bill, and the bill gets signed by the governor.

Here's what a bill looks like: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_1_bill_20081201_introduced.pdf

Scroll to page 2 of the PDF, and notice the language "The People of the State of California do enact as follows:" That is the enacting clause, and it is on every single bill that gets signed into law. The original signed bill (which is now a law), with the enacting clause on its face, then gets stored. You should be able to get a copy of the signed bill, with the enacting clause on its face, if you visit the clerk's office of wherever it's stored in Sacramento.

Enter the book publisher: A publishing company says to itself "driving to the Sacramento to get copies of individual laws sure is a pain in the butt for lawyers and for the public. If we drive to Sacramento and copy all the laws ourselves, and then put them in a book, I bet we can sell the books for a profit! But let's cut out all the boring stuff like the enacting clause, the governor's signature, and the like. Most people don't care about that stuff."

Is it starting to make sense now?

The facts are: the copyright on the inside cover doesn't say "only the book form", it covers the whole book and all works therein. I'm sorry but it seems that you are defending improper legislative works.

So now that the laws were copied, edited, and arranged in a book, the publisher says to itself "wow, copying, editing and arranging all those laws sure was time consuming and expensive. What if our competitor decides to publish a similar book, but instead of spending the time and money to copy all the laws in Sacramento, it decides to save money by copying them straight out of our book? That's not fair!"

The publisher's attorney then says "hey guys, although you can't copyright the laws themselves, you can copyright the compilation of laws in your book. If you do that, then it will be illegal for the other company to copy your book. They'll have to do their own leg work just like you did." The publisher is ecstatic, but asks "if we copyright the book, will that wrongfully imply that we're copyrighting everything, including the laws themselves?" The lawyer says "no, the copyright law specifically says that it does not imply that everything is copyrighted. just read the law:"

§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works

(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

And the publisher lived happily ever after.

The end.








.

 

[JakeB]

No I'm sorry you are mistaken. The Enacting Clause must be on the FACE of every law! Publishing laws without the proper legislative requirements makes them only a "guideline for a suggestion of quality".

Please search your local law library and provide to your own eyes the enacting clause for the laws you so desperately cling too. Before you claim they exist. No, most people do not believe as I, but the literal meaning of laws is all we have.

The facts are: the copyright on the inside cover doesn't say "only the book form", it covers the whole book and all works therein. I'm sorry but it seems that you are defending improper legislative works.

By the way, it's easy to see where your confusion lies.

First, you are under the false impression that a law book found in a library is some kind of "official" record of the law. You don't realize that the law book is just the product of a publishing company that makes money by printing redacted public records. You also fail to realize that somewhere in Sacramento, there is an actual piece of paper that was signed by the governor, and that piece of paper, which actually is the official record of the law, contains more information on it than what the publisher of the law book chose to give you.

Second, you don't understand copyright law in the slightest. You saw a (c) symbol in a book, and then you took it upon yourself to attach a meaning to that (c) symbol. Unfortunately, your interpretation is not supported by the law.

Hopefully things are a little clearer now.

 

[quincy]

APPLAUSE!!! Nicely explained, Jake.





Now all you need for your posts is a catchy tune, cartoon characters, and Jack Sheldon (of Schoolhouse Rock and The Simpson's) doing voices, and Wayst may understand the law.

 

[FlyingRon]

. You also fail to realize that somewhere in Sacramento, there is an actual piece of paper that was signed by the governor, and that piece of paper, which actually is the official record of the law, contains more information on it than what the publisher of the law book chose to give you.

That becomes the "California Statutes" essentially the Secretary of State making it official after the legislature passes it and it's either been signed by the Governator or he lets it become law or it becomes law without his signature or he vetoes it and it gets overridden.

The statutes command a change to the more topically oriented "Codes" which are essentially the "referenced law". You can tell these because they all have references with "CODE" at the end of them like the Penal Code or the Public Utilities Code.

Then of course, these are interpretted by appellate court decisions as recorded in the California "Reports".


Maryland works pretty much the same way...bills get enacted into law and "chaptered" into the statues. The approval method by the governor, vetos, and overrides are a bit different than either Federal or California law. Again the chaptered statues change the Maryland Code.

In both cases, as an expedience to understanding thing, private publishers also publish an "annoated" code that incorporates some of the legislative history and/or appellate interpretation.

 

[Antigone*]

APPLAUSE!!! Nicely explained, Jake.





Now all you need for your posts is a catchy tune, cartoon characters, and Jack Sheldon (of Schoolhouse Rock and The Simpson's) doing voices, and Wayst may understand the law.

OMG quincy...I loved Schoolhouse Rock!!!!

I am a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm living here on capitol hill!!!!

Hey guys...did somebody actually report this quack to admin about his parachute drop into the Esq club without the proper credentials???


eta.. Jake, what was the cheap shot ~ I'm sure it was a doozy. You do have a knack for being witty!!

 

[Wayst Past]

Ok, ok... you know what I could be wrong! So how about anyone of you provides an enacting clause for "Public Intoxication" in the State of CA.

I've looked. There are a slew of regulations in the "CALIFORNIA statues" that don't have enacting clauses.

If anyone can prove that it exists or even where I can find it myself I will make a formal apology.

 

[cbg]

Is it just me, or has this thread gone WAY off topic?

And what the heck do the laws of CA have to do with a MD question anyway?

 

[JakeB]

Ok, ok... you know what I could be wrong! So how about anyone of you provides an enacting clause for "Public Intoxication" in the State of CA.

I've looked. There are a slew of regulations in the "CALIFORNIA statues" that don't have enacting clauses.

If anyone can prove that it exists or even where I can find it myself I will make a formal apology.

The California law that makes public intoxication a crime is part of Penal Code Section 647, which is a disorderly conduct statute. Public intoxication is just one of many types of conduct that is considered disorderly, and it is located in Subsection (f), which states:

647. Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty
of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:

(f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of
intoxicating liquor, any drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any
combination of any intoxicating liquor, drug, controlled substance,
or toluene, in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care
for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or by reason of
his or her being under the influence of intoxicating liquor, any
drug, controlled substance, toluene, or any combination of any
intoxicating liquor, drug, or toluene, interferes with or obstructs
or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public
way.

You can see it for yourself here (keep in mind that this website is just a compilation of the laws, and therefore, you won't see an enacting clause): CA Codes (pen:639-653.2)

So far as I can tell, the current version of Section 647 was enacted in 1999. You can see the bill that was sent to the governor for his signature here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_182_bill_19990816_enrolled.pdf

On page 2 of that PDF document, you'll see the enacting clause ("The People of the State of California do enact as follows:"). On page 3, you'll find Subsection (f), which outlaws public intoxication. On the last page you'll see where the Governor can sign the bill.

After some additional digging, I found that it was signed by the Governor on August 25, 1999, and filed with the Secretary of State on August 26, 1999. You can see the history of it here (look at the dates at the top of the page): AB 182 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED

If you want to get an actual copy of the bill with the Governor's signature, you may be able to do so by contacting the Secretary of State. This is from the Secretary of State's website, and it supports what I wrote in an earlier post about the official record of the law:

The Secretary of State assigns an Assembly or Senate bill (bill) a number known as the chapter number; when the Governor approves, signs, dates, and deposits the bill with the Secretary of State. This copy is the official record and law of the State.

You can see that quote here: Bill Chapters - California Secretary of State

So, books, websites, etc. are very convenient ways to find the law, but they are not official records of the law. And of course, to keep my explanations simple, I ignored situations mentioned by FlyingRon, but he is absolutely correct that the governor doesn't have to sign the bill for it to become law.

Phew, I'm glad this issue can be put to rest (though it was interesting to research).

 

[Wayst Past]

Very dashing Lad! You've done some wonderful research JakeB! I commend you for your determined approach in this matter. And in fact I would rely on your law advice over a thousand others', for you seem to be fully aware of yourself.

But the fact of the matter still remains: I asked for the enacting clause on "Public Intoxication" my friend, not one Titled: "Disorderly Conduct".

Besides the rule is this: That One law, shall express but one title, one purpose on its face. I guess I just takes things too literally!
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree.

Though I would still like to give my apologies, you are much more knowledgeable than I as most of the other posts are as well. I hope to one day achieve your level. Peace.

 

[CdwJava]

Jake very articulately pointed it out - public intoxication is covered under section 647(f) of the Penal Code (disorderly conduct by public intoxication), and Jake found the following with regard to that law:

So far as I can tell, the current version of Section 647 was enacted in 1999. You can see the bill that was sent to the governor for his signature here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_0151-0200/ab_182_bill_19990816_enrolled.pdf

On page 2 of that PDF document, you'll see the enacting clause ("The People of the State of California do enact as follows:"). On page 3, you'll find Subsection (f), which outlaws public intoxication. On the last page you'll see where the Governor can sign the bill.​

So, he DID point out the enacting clause.

- Carl