+- MarcStevens.net Forum (http://marcstevens.net/board)
+-- Forum: No STATE Projects (/forum-15.html)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (/forum-21.html)
+--- Thread: Standing (/thread-631.html)
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 12-25-2010 06:05 PM
holipsism Wrote:Don't worry, I blocked him after Marc said ignore him. I haven't seen anything since. :wishmeluck:
Me too neither. :o This particular message board software calls them "friends and enemies." As Marc said here:
Marc Stevens Wrote:I stand by my understanding, I never claimed there had to be a body. I agree, as you do, at least in part (see bolded parts above), there has to be a legal injury. If you look at the standing cross-reference, you'll see I use the purported purpose of government viz., to protect rights, to support the standing and corpus delecti citations about injury.
You can use the word "transgression", it doesn't change the requirement there has to be a legal injury (violation of a legal right/breach of a known legal duty) for there to be a case or cause of action for a court to then have subject matter jurisdiction.
Yes, the injury is different for different crimes i.e, murder, rape, fraud, but, there still has to be an injury:
âthe duty of this [United States Supreme] court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.â Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.
That's pretty plain and consistent with the stated purpose of government: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Seems straightforward to me. Some people just can't grasp simple concepts. What a dirty shame. :rolleyes2:
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 12-25-2010 08:15 PM
Dionysus Wrote:holipsism Wrote:Don't worry, I blocked him after Marc said ignore him. I haven't seen anything since. :wishmeluck:
Me too neither. :o This particular message board software calls them "friends and enemies." As Marc said here:
Marc Stevens Wrote:I stand by my understanding, I never claimed there had to be a body. I agree, as you do, at least in part (see bolded parts above), there has to be a legal injury. If you look at the standing cross-reference, you'll see I use the purported purpose of government viz., to protect rights, to support the standing and corpus delecti citations about injury.
You can use the word "transgression", it doesn't change the requirement there has to be a legal injury (violation of a legal right/breach of a known legal duty) for there to be a case or cause of action for a court to then have subject matter jurisdiction.
Yes, the injury is different for different crimes i.e, murder, rape, fraud, but, there still has to be an injury:
âthe duty of this [United States Supreme] court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.â Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405, 21 SCt. 206, 208.
That's pretty plain and consistent with the stated purpose of government: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
Seems straightforward to me. Some people just can't grasp simple concepts. What a dirty shame. :rolleyes2:
See? This is why ignorance is bliss, the above is nothing but ignorance and an opinion not based on any law. There is no need for an injury in a criminal case dumb dumbs:
Quote:Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).
Quote:Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).
From Cornell University Law School (the real dummies :rolleyes2: )
Quote:An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).
(mal-uhm prohibit-uhm) Latin for "wrong due to being prohibited," referring to acts made illegal by statute to benefit public welfare, not because they are inherently evil and obvious violations of society's standards. Generally, they do not involve immediate injury or damage to others. Examples include violations of regulatory acts, insider trading, and tax avoidance.
Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.
Crimes and torts that many claim are malum prohibitum, but not malum in se, include:
Illegal drug use and sale
Prohibition of alcohol
Illegal immigration
Gambling
Criticism of government (in countries where freedom of speech either does not exist, or is significantly watered-down).
Restrictions on the ownership and/or carrying of weapons by private citizens.
Copyright infringement
Indecent exposure
That's the difference between having gone to law school, and just thinking you know something about law. :yawn: Damn, that's gotta sting looking so foolish playing in a system you can't even begin to comprehend. I win because I know law, people like those above will lose because they are clueless. Smoke and mirrors is all they can produce, I produce results!
I can see most on here just like this:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://policecrimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=9419" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://policecrimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=9419</a><!-- m -->
Re: Standing - WorBlux - 12-27-2010 06:21 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:Quote:Malum Prohibitum: A wrong prohibited; a thing which is wrong because prohibited; an act which i not inherently immoral, but becomes so because its commission is expressly forbidden by positive LAW; an act involving an illegality resulting from positive LAW.
You're making a lot of assumptions here, and relying on opinions rather than facts
Can you prove that right now , with facts that I am in a state right now?
Can you prove with the same that the law applies to me?
Can you even tell me in factual terms what the law is?
And please no personal attacks, I will ignore you if there are. I'm just interested in the facts.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 12-27-2010 07:07 PM
Ohhhh, I see. You don't like a quote that doesn't conform to your thinking?
That's taken from the same book judges throught the united states use on the bench.
Can I prove you are in a state? No, I have no idea where you are, and could really careless where you are.
Little hard to prove the law of any state applies to you when I don't have a clue where you are. You could be in Canada for all I know.
Come on up to Montana, and I'll apply the law all the live long day.
Lord, here we go again:
Quote:Law: The "Law" of a state is to be found in its statutory and constitutional enactments, as interpreted by its courts, and, in absence of statute law, in rulings of its courts. Dauer's Estate v. Zabel, 9 Mich. App. 176, 156 N.W.2d 34,37
Word "law' generally contemplates both statutory and case law. Matter of Estate of Perlberg, Tenn. App, 694, S.W.2d 304
Here's where you fail: You believe the "State" is non-existant. Yet, you try to use case law to back up your ideas of law. That's like saying "gee judge, you don't have jurisdiction over me, but I'm going to MOTION to dismiss". It makes no sense whatsoever. If you motion the court, you have admitted jurisdiction over you and the matter.
If the state does not exist, then no constitution exists, if the consitutions do not exist, the courts do not exist, therefore your cases you bring with you are meaningless. We all know the constitutions do exist. So, lets see what a "State" actually (factually just for you) is:
Quote:State, A people permanently occupying the fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capapble of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other communities of the blobe. United States v. Jusche, D.C.Val, 56 F. Supp 201, 207, 208.
The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people. Delany v. Moraitis, C.C.A.Md, 136 F.2d 129, 130
In it's largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc Indemnification Corp.
A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one government. State ex rel. Maisano v. Mitchell.
I still don't see what all these childish questions have to do with the topic at hand, and that is Proving that civil standing is required in a criminal case. Prosecutors pull this same crap all the time, throw something out to distract from the matter at hand, it's called "Red Herring".
Standing (a term only used in civil cases) is not required in Malum Prohibitum cases, you will never get past that.
Like I've said, go to court, I already know how it's going to go down. Then, when you lose, you can cry and whine about how "corrupt" the system is because they don't agree with Marc Stevens. That's one hell of a legal stategy. Maybe we will call your ideas the "SATURN DEFENSE" because it's way, way out there.
Re: Standing - WorBlux - 12-27-2010 09:01 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:Can I prove you are in a state? No, I have no idea where you are, and could really careless where you are.
Little hard to prove the law of any state applies to you when I don't have a clue where you are. You could be in Canada for all I know.
Come on up to Montana, and I'll apply the law all the live long day.
For the sake of argument, you may assume I'm at whatever latitude and longitude you specify. I still don't think you'll be able to prove that I'm within a State, or a member of a political body.
Quote:In it's largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc Indemnification Corp.
Then by your own admission the State is not primarily geographical, but rather political and corporate.
Quote:Montana Scott Wrote:If the state does not exist, then no constitution exists, if the consitutions do not exist, the courts do not exist, therefore your cases you bring with you are meaningless. We all know the constitutions do exist.
Hidden premise, (All constitutions create a state)
No doubt there are four pieces of paper with writing on them that were called the later given the title "constitution of/for the united states.". I could write on some papers and give them the title "Gift from Montana Scout of his house, motor vehicle, and wife to WorBlux, and have five strangers sign in witness to it in exchange for a cut. Does that paper actually signify in any sort of real and factual sense that you wish to give me such a gift, and that said car, house, and wife are mine? Not every written instrument is sufficient to create what it claims to create.
And I'll tie this in again. What is the law factually? No interperations, court opinions and so on, but what it/they are at the fundamental level.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 12-27-2010 09:32 PM
WorBlux Wrote:Montana Scott Wrote:Can I prove you are in a state? No, I have no idea where you are, and could really careless where you are.
Little hard to prove the law of any state applies to you when I don't have a clue where you are. You could be in Canada for all I know.
Come on up to Montana, and I'll apply the law all the live long day.
For the sake of argument, you may assume I'm at whatever latitude and longitude you specify. I still don't think you'll be able to prove that I'm within a State, or a member of a political body.
Quote:In it's largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men. Beagle v. Motor Vehicle Acc Indemnification Corp.
Then by your own admission the State is not primarily geographical, but rather political and corporate.
Quote:Montana Scott Wrote:If the state does not exist, then no constitution exists, if the consitutions do not exist, the courts do not exist, therefore your cases you bring with you are meaningless. We all know the constitutions do exist.
Hidden premise, (All constitutions create a state)
No doubt there are four pieces of paper with writing on them that were called the later given the title "constitution of/for the united states.". I could write on some papers and give them the title "Gift from Montana Scout of his house, motor vehicle, and wife to WorBlux, and have five strangers sign in witness to it in exchange for a cut. Does that paper actually signify in any sort of real and factual sense that you wish to give me such a gift, and that said car, house, and wife are mine? Not every written instrument is sufficient to create what it claims to create.
You can write whatever you like on paper, you are not Montana Scott, and it will have no bearing on any of my property.
Why do you keep avoiding the original post? Simply show me that his theory of civil standing applies to criminal cases. Don't go on a rant of questions that do not pertain to the topic at hand. I know, I know, you want to make a name for yourself jumping on my coattail and asking a bunch of stupid questions, avoiding the orginal topic at all costs.
I even stepped out for a few weeks, and my posts get more hits than anyones in less time. And somehow, in your mind, you think arguing crap that has nothing to do with the subject makes you "look" smarter. I'm kinda feeling sorry for you and people like you that are so insignificant, so far off base. We see the "SATURN DEFENSE" once again. :'(
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-29-2010 07:05 AM
Nomos Wrote:I take it you really haven't had any significant problems with the "state." Just a traffic ticket once in a blue moon or so?
~Nomos
For the most part. I'm starting to get a better understanding of your goals, but I'm not really a member of the "cause", and I have no interest in potentially sacrificing myself to reveal the corruption in the system. At the moment I'm really only concerned with winning the case. More power to you though for creating public awareness. I am finding that this discussion became way too heated for me over the holidays, so I think I'm going to take this opportunity to withdraw.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-29-2010 01:45 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:Nomos Wrote:I take it you really haven't had any significant problems with the "state." Just a traffic ticket once in a blue moon or so?
~Nomos
For the most part. I'm starting to get a better understanding of your goals, but I'm not really a member of the "cause", and I have no interest in potentially sacrificing myself to reveal the corruption in the system. At the moment I'm really only concerned with winning the case. More power to you though for creating public awareness. I am finding that this discussion became way too heated for me over the holidays, so I think I'm going to take this opportunity to withdraw.
Honestly, I don't have a "cause," and my only goal is to be left alone and to live without paying for protection that I don't and won't receive. However I've found my problems are the problems of others to some degree more or less. I only shared my experiences so as to hopefully pass on information that can be useful. I learned long ago that the world doesn't want to be saved, so it is better to communicate with like minds, and if they want to know then I have it to give (hopefully).
I hope you weren't attributing "heated discussion" to me as I try to always hear both sides - but if so it's never personal and I meant no disrespect. My frustration in discussion generally comes when I am deemed "wrong" BEFORE there's been an identification of ALL the facts and issues. Then it gets even more frustrating when an issue is not confronted squarely. However, I still try to maintain respect and cordiality.
However, I too have withdrawn because, although I haven't perceived "heat" in discussion (other than with wacky troll), I do have a serious pet peeve with discussion that is all over the place and not focused, or overly and unreasonably opinionated. But, that's just me.
When I enter into a discussion it's always my intent to learn something, whether I'm right or wrong. That's what I believed this forum was set up for. I hate talking for the sake of talking. I'm involved in discussion so as to "do" something. To accomplish the end.
I asked the question I did because, you do have the tone of someone who hasn't REALLY been victimized to the point of having to stop and say to yourself WTF?!?!?! is going ON?! My path was laid because of racial profiling. When you're averaging 2.3 tickets a year, with 90% of those resulting from a felony style seizure for a minor traffic infraction like failing to stop behind the pedestrian line, failing to signal before changing lanes when nobody is on the street, failing to go at a green light in a turning lane (yes at a green light), then those types of events make you stop and look at "the system."
But, I did enjoy the exchange. Thanks.
Until next we communicate . . .
~Nomos 8)
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-29-2010 03:25 PM
Ah.
The silence is deafening! ^-^
- NonE
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 12-29-2010 09:06 PM
NonEntity Wrote:Ah.
The silence is deafening! ^-^
- NonE
Looks like Trolly McTroll got banned as per his wish. He'll be back. I've been dealing with trolls ever since the days of Usenet newsgroups. Even IP banning them doesn't stop them sometimes. Wastes of my time.
Re: Standing - indio - 12-29-2010 11:16 PM
Dionysus Wrote:NonEntity Wrote:Ah.
The silence is deafening! ^-^
- NonE
Looks like Trolly McTroll got banned as per his wish. He'll be back. I've been dealing with trolls ever since the days of Usenet newsgroups. Even IP banning them doesn't stop them sometimes. Wastes of my time.
He was definitely a legend in his own mind. What else could you expect from a wanna-be lieyer?
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-31-2010 05:55 AM
indio Wrote:He was definitely a legend in his own mind. What else could you expect from a wanna-be lieyer?
He is just another statist seeking a legal loop hole within the very system he, fundamentally, feels is LEGITIMATE. :rolleyes: :rolleyes2:
:frobro: Holip
Re: Standing - WorBlux - 01-01-2011 01:46 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:You can write whatever you like on paper, you are not Montana Scott, and it will have no bearing on any of my property.
Exactly, I agree 100% with that principle. Further it doesn't matter weather someone calls that paper a constitution or a law. (Factually all a law is, is a piece of paper with words on it)
The rest is just details and minutiae.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 01-01-2011 04:21 AM
Nomos Wrote:I hope you weren't attributing "heated discussion" to me as I try to always hear both sides
It wasn't you at all. I like our discussions. I just don't like the type of argument this thread was turning into because of Scott.
Re: Standing - PatriotOne - 01-02-2011 10:34 AM
For me STANDING is very simple.
Without the ability to evidence injury/damage/trespass/etc. Man cannot stand in court and begg a judge to force another Man to pay.
There is STANDING and there is WITHOUT STANDING. STANDING requires supporting elements. The OFFICER cannot STAND without the Man supporting its costume. If the Man undresses the OFFICER costume falls to the ground, the OFFICER is no more.
Now the question is; which of the three have standing, the Plaintiff/OFFICER/STATE/Man. All four want STANDING for "their" charges. Can the Defendant call out the Man and question the Man as to his ability to animate the OFFICER that animates the STATE's wanting injury to animate the Plaintiff?
Without injury and/or deprivation STANDING does not exist.
I think...
PatriotOne