Standing - Printable Version
+- 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 - Mike W - 11-19-2010 08:40 PM
I find this thread very interesting.
I'm not real good at all this legalese but isn't a civil action a tort and a criminal action a public tort?
Wouldn't the requirement of standing for a tort also be a requirement for a public tort?
It just seems that if a tort requires standing then a public tort would require it too.
I don't think it's that complicated.
Kind of like you must include the donut to make a jelly donut.
Yum, I headed to Krispy Kreme for a snack and a coffee.. be back soon
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-19-2010 10:27 PM
Mike W Wrote:Hi All,
Perhaps you should look into Walmart. YOu seem to "think" what ever you want it to be. Have you asked yourself "just why these sorry pay-triot types cant' answer the question"? Have you thought about that?
and NO, a criminal charge is not a "public tort". If I murder you, is a "public tort". Nope. Torts are civil, have nothing to do with criminal cases.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-19-2010 10:46 PM
There just isn't much hope for some of you. I'm sorry, but this forum is becoming extremely hard to read.
All I've asked for is for Marc to prove what he is saying. I have gotten nothing but double talk.
Show me the connection that you can use civil standing in criminal cases. How hard can it be if it be true?
NonE-You "claim" that Marcs material isn't part of a scam. (Okay, next you'll tell me Larken Rose is a tax expert. How many poor bastards have listened to him and ended up losing their property, or worse yet, gone to prison?) YET NONE, you admitted to me you have never tried Marcs stuff in court. I have, it was shot down. Although I called into the show claiming his argument worked, once I read a little more on the judicial complaint I filed, it became clear why I was found not guilty. It had NOTHING to do with filing Marcs motion.
On one show, Marc "advised" me to drop my In Personam Jurisdictional argument. That was a fatal mistake in my case. I will now have to go to trial in Justice court, get convicted. I will then have to appeal to district court (which will not listen to anything that happened in the lower court) and will have to spend about 6 months of my life to retry this case.
If you all want to learn how it really works, get off your dead ass's, go to the clerk, and ask very nice if you may get a copy (digital) of the judges deskbook. I have several, from local to Federal judges deskbooks.
THEN, attempt to apply Marcs work after you have gotten educated.
Why did I try marcs stuff? Well, I'm the kinda guy that likes to try something new (remember, I've not lost a case in 15 years, but am on the verge of it now). I called marcs show 3 times, he came up with all sorts of strange arguments. The last time I called, I read right out of the judges deskbook, which his response was "thats weird". I'm sure it is when you are met with facts.
I'm refering to "speedy trial". Marc claims you can raise this at any time. An example of how wrong he is- IN Montana, you have to make a plea before the clock starts ticking (once you enter the court, it's game over, you have submitted to the courts jurisdiction). Marc claims its from the time the charge is filed. No it's not. You can not make a right to speedy trial claim if the court does not have In Personam Jurisdiction over you! You must plea, then as I said, it is game over.
Here's another example of missleading, a direct quote on jurisdiction of the court:
Quote:300.200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Now if you want to argue that, here's your sign: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNM4atakanI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNM4atakanI</a><!-- m -->
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 11-20-2010 05:53 AM
How can you cheat someone who is threatening you and demanding your own property be given to them or they will hurt or kill you?
Sorry that you are not "getting" Marc's point, Scott, but he is not a scam, he just has a different view than you and is trying to convey it.
Re: Standing - indio - 11-20-2010 06:57 AM
I can't figure it out. Did you lose or case or are anticipating losing your case? It isn't quite December 1st yet...
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 11-20-2010 08:30 AM
indio Wrote:I can't figure it out. Did you lose or case or are anticipating losing your case? It isn't quite December 1st yet...
Maybe Scott's world is like that of the alcoholic where, "It's cocktail hour SOMEPLACE!" :biggrinblue:
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-20-2010 08:46 AM
NonEntity Wrote:indio Wrote:I can't figure it out. Did you lose or case or are anticipating losing your case? It isn't quite December 1st yet...
Maybe NonE's world is that of a crack whore, where "it" is on "its" knees doing "its' duty. Knee pads worn out and all. Open wide NonE :yawn:
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 11-20-2010 09:06 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:NonEntity Wrote:indio Wrote:I can't figure it out. Did you lose or case or are anticipating losing your case? It isn't quite December 1st yet...
So... how are those anger management classes workin' out for ya, Scott?
- Dr. NonPhil
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-20-2010 10:12 AM
NonE is like a disfunctional prosecutor, avoid the facts at all cost, and repeatedly throw out red hearings.
If you can't prove the connection, then why even bother to respond to the post?
As you have pointed out, you have never used this material in court. As a matter of fact, you seem completely lost when it comes down to how the legal system functions.
Let me ask you "followers" this-IF Marcs claims are right, why does he have you submit to the courts jurisdiction and file a MOTION on subject matter jurisdiction? Isn't this the opposite of what he's preaching? He's claiming they don't have jurisdiction over you, but then has you submit to jurisdiction.
Listen to Marcs show, all of them. You will hear the same thing, from different states.
If you want to prove that this method could ever work, wouldn't you simply post a freagin court order of ONE case, just one, where it did work? (Just because there is a dismissal doesn't prove the method worked). I would love to see a court order where a judge allowed a civil argument to be made in a criminal case. (the prosecutor would appeal that bs so fast, it would make your head spin).
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 11-20-2010 03:28 PM
Montana Scott, are you listening to Marc right now? He's addressing your issue.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 11-20-2010 04:43 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:I'm not really seeing a connection in all these cases of standing pertaining to criminal cases. Can someone explain?
Maybe I can put it into terms you can consider.
The governmental system is puported to be established for the protection of rights. However, if one were to read case law on the duty of protection, they would find that the duty only arises when one chooses to protect. Until the decision is made, there is no duty.
The best place to see how the two (civil/criminal) are one in the same is to look at the government tort claims statutes.
Every legal action revolves around a delecti. Period end of story. "Standing" to sue (or prosecute) goes to the issue of the right of a person who has capacity to sue to sue for relief on the cause of action alleged.
A cause of action consists of the primary right possessed by plaintiff, the corresponding primary duty devolving on the
defendant, and the wrong done by the defendant. Under the "primary right" theory of pleading followed (in California and no doubt in all other jurisdictions), a cause of action is based on the injury suffered by the plaintiff, regardless of the particular legal theory or theories on which plaintiff seeks redress.
No matter if it's civil or criminal there has to be injury and damages. Without them, then there has been a "failure to state a cause of action," and therefore no "subject matter" jurisdiction of the court to hear the case.
So even if the judge "overrules" the motion, it doesn't matter because there's no "subject matter." Any decision granting any relief in civil/criminal court would be void as a matter of law. Why? Because the objection to a court's jurisdiction based on a "lack of subject matter" jurisdiction can never be waived. Personal (in personam) jurisdiction can.
Hope this helps.
Re: Standing - indio - 11-20-2010 10:58 PM
NonEntity Wrote:So... how are those anger management classes workin' out for ya, Scott?
He's also writing a book titled,
"How to Make New Friends and Influence People"
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-24-2010 02:16 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:Okay, that's great. But, if you can't find the case, you have to attach it to your paper work. I can find no reference to this case you mention other than articles by Marc.
??? I'll be the first person to flame myself by stating I'm confused as to what the issue is.
Is your argument that STANDING is a matter of each court or judge's discretion and not the fundamental element of any case be it civil or criminal? If so, where is this FACT stated? Thank you in advance.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-25-2010 07:02 PM
holipsism Wrote:Montana Scott Wrote:Okay, that's great. But, if you can't find the case, you have to attach it to your paper work. I can find no reference to this case you mention other than articles by Marc.
No, I'm asking Marc or anyone to show me you can use civil cases in criminal proceedings for standing.
You have crimal procedure, and you have civl procedure. Where is the connection between the two?
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-25-2010 07:13 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:holipsism Wrote:Montana Scott Wrote:Okay, that's great. But, if you can't find the case, you have to attach it to your paper work. I can find no reference to this case you mention other than articles by Marc.
See, that's the part I'm not clear on. Don't you need a valid cause of action in both a civil and criminal procedure? Because if you do, and it would be INCREDIBLE that you don't, I don't see how Marc is saying anything that isn't correct. Why would he have to show a connection when that IS the connection? If you don't need a valid cause of action in one or the other then what is the purpose of a trial or a hearing? Why not just pay the cop when he writes you the ticket or go straight to jail when you are charged with a crime? There is absolutely no need to be in a court room if the person accusing you doesn't have to satisfy the three elements of a cause of action, is there?
With all due respect, keep in mind I'm not an expert in law, so I deeply apologize for my ignorance. Thank you in advance.