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 - Dionysus - 11-25-2010 07:16 PM
Listen to last week's show in the archives. I believe your answer is in there. Marc talked about you specifically.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 11-25-2010 07:25 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:No, I'm asking Marc or anyone to show me you can use civil cases in criminal proceedings for standing.
This is open dialog, and not to get into verbal fisticuffs. If you are willing to "listen" then you will "get" what's said.
Standing is an issue like jurisdiction. It 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.
In criminal cases, the "cause of action" is no different than in a civil case, other than the penalty assigned.
There always has to be injury and damages.
The so-called justice system has evolved to a state where our ignorance is our downfall. Meaning, not enough people are aware of what requirements are, in order for a suit to be had in the courts. Whether its criminal or civil.
Case in point. EVERY lawyer will tell you that all CRIMINAL defendants are entitled to trial by jury. But, in states where there are "infractions" like here in California, the so-called defendant is not allowed to have trial by jury in spite of what the Constitution says is an "inviolate" right.
Now do we just presume that its "allowed" just because it's being done? Or do we see it for what it really is? (Notwithstanding the legitimacy of government or not.) It is NON-criminal. I can show you for a fact that infractions are not a crimes in California simply by taking you to a court house that ONLY hears civil matters. YET, they are arraigning people there daily. Doesn't mean it's legitimate just because it's done.
One court in particular even has signs posted ALL around the court house stating "criminal matters are no longer heard in this court." But nobody has connected the dots that HEEEEY! I'm being arraigned here as a criminal defendant. Nor do they question it.
Marc is simply stating a truism that is touted high in low in every court amongst the insiders, i.e. "lawyers and judges" but when it comes to us, the outsiders, we get told "that's YOUR interpretation." What's funny is that there is also the "void for vagueness" doctrine which you would think kick in at that point, because it's doctrine is that if the statute is not able to be understood by the common man, then it is void for vagueness. So this begs the question, how is an "inviolate" right suddenly ok? The only answer can be, that it is FRAUD.
So, will you find case law saying that "standing" is required even for "criminal cases?" Probably not, but if you understand the requirements of a civil OR criminal case, which would be "an injured party" and damages, then you can SEE that the requirements are the same and something is amiss, and it aint working for YOU, as defendant.
If you're running a scam, are you going to show your marks how to defeat you? No! because you depend on the marks ignorance to survive. Otherwise you would have to be a "productive" person.
And let me throw something else out for you to consider. Just because you see something identified exactly as you know it in one genre, doesn't mean it's not the same, or have the same effect.
Example. Stealing is the taking of property that doesn't belong to you without consent of the owner. In so-called "criminal" law, it's called "theft." But in civil law, it's called "conversion." The acts are the same, and findings of the act are the same. Just in one, the burden of proof is more than in the other.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-26-2010 12:19 AM
Nomos Wrote:Montana Scott Wrote:No, I'm asking Marc or anyone to show me you can use civil cases in criminal proceedings for standing.
I don't know about him, but that cleared things up for me.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-26-2010 12:25 AM
Yes he did. Cleared things up for me.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-26-2010 03:10 AM
holipsism Wrote:Dionysus Wrote:Scott:
No, he did not. I listened to it, and more of the same. He is on the verge of admitting you cannot apply those freagin civil cases to criminal proceedings.
Marc also doesn't seem to understand that once In Personam Jurisdiction is challanged, the court cannot summons or arrest you. Marc said on the show, that you can file a motion, and this does not give the court jurisdiction when you appear specially. Wrong. You admit to jurisdiction when you file a motion, which is asking the court to do something for you. HOw the hell can you not see, if you are asking the court to do something (make a motion) You have admited jurisdiction, further, once you walk into court, you just waved In Personam Jurisdiction.
You people are painfull to talk to, and to be honest, is very insulting. Most of you have never been in a court room, yet think you know something. I'm sorry, I know you think you know, but you just don't.
I have studing law, went to school for it, and am doing very well suing cops and kickin ass in court, especially tickets. Of course, I have won other cases such as child custody, back taxed forced sale, other peoples criminal charges.
According to marc, if one of you purposely cut off my legs, and I signed an application for and a criminal complaint, and don't know all the "elements" the case is invalid.
In Marcs theory, you could ask the cop how much gravitational pull the earth has on the moon, and when the cop doesn't know, he would be disqualifide because he couldn't asnwer the question. What ever.
I have better things to do than waste my time attempting to get an answer from anyone here, which will never come.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-26-2010 03:20 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:holipsism Wrote:Dionysus Wrote:Scott:
I don't understand why you are being so rude and disrespectful to people when no one is being rude and disrespectful to you. Until now...I don't believe a word being typed by you.
If you were such a hot shot with your legal loop holes (which is all you are really looking for since you obviously believe in the validity of the state) why didn't you utilize the techniques you've been using and why did you reach out to Marc Stevens in the first place?
Also, your above so called example is RIDICULOUS. Is the cop arresting you because of how much gravitational pull the earth has on the moon? No, so if he doesn't know the answer to that question BIG FREAKIN DEAL. But, If I get a ticket and the cop doesn't know what a valid cause of action is I would think that would be RELEVANT because he is attempting to extract money from you based on his opinion you did something wrong.
You don't know because you don't want to know. You keep saying no one has experience utilizing his strategy in a court room. HE DOES. Does that not count? Geeesh
Good bye and good riddance.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-26-2010 09:12 AM
Why did I "reach out to marc'? I didn't really. I though maybe he knew what the hell he was talking about. I was wrong.
I have posted the website where I have posted several WINNING orders.
I look for no "lool hole", and really don't know what that is. "Loop hole" is nothing but a term used by the uneducated. There is only procedure.
Anyone who has read this thread can clearly see, I asked a simple question, and have yet to get an answer. On marcs show, he says just to put in a bunch of cases (criminal and civil) and go from there LMAO.
Perhaps one should have a clue if it is a civil infraction, or a crime long before you file anything and go to court. Which court rules are you following when you file?
I have been willing to listen to the theory, but all I have gotten is the run around.
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 11-26-2010 09:51 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:I have been willing to listen to the theory, but all I have gotten is the run around.
Good. We're done then, right?
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 11-26-2010 11:28 AM
Montana Scott Wrote:I have better things to do than waste my time attempting to get an answer from anyone here, which will never come.
And what makes you think any of us has any "answers" to give? You need to find your own answers, just like all of us do. We can "compare notes" by exchanging ideas and relating our experiences, but for you to think that we have any "answers" for you is quite presumptuous. Marc has developed a strategy that is logically sound and has a proven track record behind it, and it's been very effective for him and others. You can make use of it, or not make use of it. The choice is yours. Frankly, I don't care anymore. I'm tired of your squawking.
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-26-2010 01:07 PM
Dionysus Wrote:Montana Scott Wrote:I have better things to do than waste my time attempting to get an answer from anyone here, which will never come.
That's a fine attitude to have.
All I asked was for someone, marc or any one else to show me the connection of civl procedure and criminal procedure and how you can use civil cases in criminal proceedings.
Nobody could do it. We are now amost 4 pages into this crap, more of the runaround.
IN my everyday life, and on the job, you ask me a question, I don't avoid the answer with red herrings.
I don't htink I've asked for very much.
I"m not saying marc is actually wrong, I"m just saying he needs to back it up when confronted with the question. I have never seen nor have I heard you could use civil in criminal unless specifcally told to do so by the rules of the uniform rules of the court, or by local rules of the court, or by statute.
for instance, In montana you computate time on criminal motions by civl rules, but you follow the rules of criminal procedure for motions in criminal cases, not the rules of civil procedure.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-26-2010 01:24 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:Why did I "reach out to marc'? I didn't really. I though maybe he knew what the hell he was talking about. I was wrong.
You are lying.
So, you posted several WINNING orders and then you just decided to try a strategy you've never tried before and trust a person you've never dealt with before so you can.....Yeah...ok. :rolleyes:
Also, what you just typed proved you didn't listen to a damn thing Marc said on the show and right now you are just freestyling like a Hip Hop Emcee and making stuff up off the top of your head.
What part about this did you not understand?
"If you want to nail them down just ask them, "Excuse me, what is the burden of proof here?" If they tell you its beyond a reasonable doubt its a crime (criminal). If they tell you its a preponderance of evidence its civil."
What more do you need?
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 11-26-2010 01:33 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:for instance, In montana you computate time...[right](emphasis mine)[/right]
Dude! You need to chill a bit. Your computational bits and pieces are about to fuse together. :biggrinblue:
(Besides, I thought we were done here.)
Re: Standing - Nomos - 11-26-2010 02:06 PM
I think it's clear he's obviously not here for anything but rabble-rousing . Hey Dionysus, now HE's an antagonist!
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-26-2010 03:59 PM
Nomos Wrote:I think it's clear he's obviously not here for anything but rabble-rousing . Hey Dionysus, now HE's an antagonist!
It's clear you're the village idiot. None of you even begin to understand jurisdiction, I know you think you do, but you don't. Frankly, conversing with most of you is an insult to any human being with any amount of intelligence, it's pretty damn painfull. Same bullshit, different forum.
Sorry none of you actually understand or could even begin to comprehend American Jurisprudance.
You people are a waste of time, a total waste. Take your lil six year old red herring arguments and shove them up your ass, because a judge will if you don't.
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 11-26-2010 04:06 PM
Okay Montana. I now officially :wacky: proclaim you as a troll.
PLEASE don't feed the troll folks. :rolleyes2: