palani
21st May 2013, 04:27 AM
Lots of good info here:
http://www.rochesterlaw.org/insidepg/audio/bob2-09.mp3
Summons is issued by clerk of court only and cannot be issued by the executive branch (the guy in your face with a badge, a gun and a distorted ego).
For more on summons from several thousand years ago check here
http://books.google.com/books?id=j3kBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=attic+nights+aulius+gallius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4lebUerLJZTC9QSl54HoDw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attic%20nights%20aulius%20gallius&f=false
Our ancestors granted nobody the authority to summons them except perhaps the chief magistrate (aka governor or in some cases president)
We read it recorded in a certain letter of Atteius Capito, that Labeo Antistius was particularly distinguished by his knowledge in the laws, customs, and civil courts of the Roman people. But a certain degree of wilful obstinancy, he observes, misled the man, insomuch that when Caesar Augustus became emperor, he did not allow the justice or propriety of any act, which he could not find sanctioned by the ancient usages of the Romans. He then relates what this same Labeo (when summoned by a messenger from the tribune of the people) answered: "when", says he, "at the instigation of a certain woman, the tribunes of the people sent Gellianus to him, desiring that he would appear and answer to the woman's complaint, he ordered him who had been sent, to return, and tell the tribunes, that they had no right either to summon him or any one else. That by the custom of our ancestors, the tribunes of the people ha a right of arresting but not of summoning any one; that they might therefore come and order him to be seized, but had no right to summon him when absent. Having read this in Capito's letter, I found the same thing afterwards spoken of more at large in the 21st book of Varro's "Res humanae," whose words upon the subject I have transcribed: "In the magistracy," says he, "some have the power of summoning, some of arresting, others can do neither. The power of summoning belongs to the consuls, and others of high authority, that of arrest to the tribunes of the people, and those officers who are attended by a messenger; but the quæstors and others, who have neither a cictor nor a messenger, have neither power to summon, nor to arrest. They who have the right of summoning, are also able by law to seize, confine, and carry away, and this whether the persons are present, or are cited by their command. The tribunes of the people have no right of summoning. Nevertheless, many ignorant persons have used this authority, as if they were entitled to it. For some have ordered, not only a private individual, but a consul, to be summoned to the forum. I myself, one of the triumvirs, being summoned by Portius, a tribune of the people, did not appear: depending upon the authority of established custom, I claimed this ancient privilege; and when a tribune myself, I ordered no man to be summoned before me, nor to obey the summons of my colleague, unless he thought proper." As to this right, of which Marcus Varro speaks, I am of opinion that Labeo, when a private man, acted with an idle sort of confidence, in not appearing to the summons of the tribune. For what could be the reason for being unwilling to obey the summons of those, whom you allow to have the power of arresting you? For he who by law may be seized, may also be imprisoned. But while we are enquiring why the tribunes , who have a power of using coercive measures, have not the power of summoning, it occurs to recollection, that tribunes of the people appear to have been formerly created, not for the purpose of passing sentence, nor for taking cognisance of causes and complaints where the parties were absent, but by their presence, in causes, to take care that injustice be banished from their courts. Therefore the right of summoning was taken from them, because their office was to prevent, by their attention and presence, all acts of violence.
http://www.rochesterlaw.org/insidepg/audio/bob2-09.mp3
Summons is issued by clerk of court only and cannot be issued by the executive branch (the guy in your face with a badge, a gun and a distorted ego).
For more on summons from several thousand years ago check here
http://books.google.com/books?id=j3kBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=attic+nights+aulius+gallius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4lebUerLJZTC9QSl54HoDw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attic%20nights%20aulius%20gallius&f=false
Our ancestors granted nobody the authority to summons them except perhaps the chief magistrate (aka governor or in some cases president)
We read it recorded in a certain letter of Atteius Capito, that Labeo Antistius was particularly distinguished by his knowledge in the laws, customs, and civil courts of the Roman people. But a certain degree of wilful obstinancy, he observes, misled the man, insomuch that when Caesar Augustus became emperor, he did not allow the justice or propriety of any act, which he could not find sanctioned by the ancient usages of the Romans. He then relates what this same Labeo (when summoned by a messenger from the tribune of the people) answered: "when", says he, "at the instigation of a certain woman, the tribunes of the people sent Gellianus to him, desiring that he would appear and answer to the woman's complaint, he ordered him who had been sent, to return, and tell the tribunes, that they had no right either to summon him or any one else. That by the custom of our ancestors, the tribunes of the people ha a right of arresting but not of summoning any one; that they might therefore come and order him to be seized, but had no right to summon him when absent. Having read this in Capito's letter, I found the same thing afterwards spoken of more at large in the 21st book of Varro's "Res humanae," whose words upon the subject I have transcribed: "In the magistracy," says he, "some have the power of summoning, some of arresting, others can do neither. The power of summoning belongs to the consuls, and others of high authority, that of arrest to the tribunes of the people, and those officers who are attended by a messenger; but the quæstors and others, who have neither a cictor nor a messenger, have neither power to summon, nor to arrest. They who have the right of summoning, are also able by law to seize, confine, and carry away, and this whether the persons are present, or are cited by their command. The tribunes of the people have no right of summoning. Nevertheless, many ignorant persons have used this authority, as if they were entitled to it. For some have ordered, not only a private individual, but a consul, to be summoned to the forum. I myself, one of the triumvirs, being summoned by Portius, a tribune of the people, did not appear: depending upon the authority of established custom, I claimed this ancient privilege; and when a tribune myself, I ordered no man to be summoned before me, nor to obey the summons of my colleague, unless he thought proper." As to this right, of which Marcus Varro speaks, I am of opinion that Labeo, when a private man, acted with an idle sort of confidence, in not appearing to the summons of the tribune. For what could be the reason for being unwilling to obey the summons of those, whom you allow to have the power of arresting you? For he who by law may be seized, may also be imprisoned. But while we are enquiring why the tribunes , who have a power of using coercive measures, have not the power of summoning, it occurs to recollection, that tribunes of the people appear to have been formerly created, not for the purpose of passing sentence, nor for taking cognisance of causes and complaints where the parties were absent, but by their presence, in causes, to take care that injustice be banished from their courts. Therefore the right of summoning was taken from them, because their office was to prevent, by their attention and presence, all acts of violence.