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 - holipsism - 11-26-2010 04:28 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:Nomos Wrote:I think it's clear he's obviously not here for anything but rabble-rousing . Hey Dionysus, now HE's an antagonist!
Don't drop the soap :bootyshake:
Re: Standing - Dionysus - 11-26-2010 06:40 PM
Quote:Take your lil six year old red herring arguments and shove them up your ass,
And my little dog too??? :-*
Re: Standing - brianroberts - 11-26-2010 08:55 PM
holipsism Wrote: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.
I need nothing from cocksuckers like you, or your lil butt buddies. You fuckers lose cases, because you can't understand American Jurisprudence. You will never win.
In the mean time, I will keep posting my wins, online, proving I know what the fuck I'm doing.
I tried marcs shit, yes. I also sent the lying prick an order proving he has it all wrong. No refund for his bullshit, no response to the order.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 11-26-2010 10:30 PM
Montana Scott Wrote:What part about this did you not understand?
What kind of dumb fuck wouldn't realize that the very thing he is saying would be stupid not to know before going to court is the exact same thing he has an issue with?
Montana Scott Wrote:No, I'm asking Marc or anyone to show me you can use civil cases in criminal proceedings for standing.
You are an idiot. :bootyshake:
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-06-2010 05:42 AM
When I first started reading this thread I was so excited to join in, but it degraded so quickly. I'm going to jump in anyway, because there's a lot of questions here that I've researched extensively just recently. Standing was actually the issue that brought me here after I had a little debate with Marc. I think it started out pretty vicious, but I hope it's started to develop into more of a friendly discussion about the law.
My question was actually the same as Scott's. Does standing apply to criminal cases? I simply assumed the answer was no based on the fact that standing comes from civil rules of procedure, and Marc shot back with some responses that challenged my assumption and forced me to do some heavy research on the topic. It's actually been several weeks now and I believe I can answer the question in great detail. So let's start with Scott's original question.
Montana Scott Wrote:You have criminal procedure, and you have civil procedure. Where is the connection between the two?
The simple answer is...
There is none.
At least not the way you might think. The general rule in civil procedure is that if you want to bring a lawsuit against someone, you need to show you have standing to bring the suit. This typically requires the showing of an injury the plaintiff wants remedied. The argument I heard from Marc was that this rule would apply equally to the prosecution in a criminal case, but it most likely does not.
That doesn't mean standing doesn't come up at all in criminal cases. As Eye2 pointed out, there are some criminal cases where standing is an issue, but not in the way Marc is trying to claim. In the criminal context, standing only comes up to determine if a defendant or some other related party may raise a particular defense. For example, if the defendant is asked to testify, can a third party to the case claim a 5th amendment privilege on the defendant's behalf? Most likely not. The third party is not the one being asked to testify, and probably will not be able to claim an injury. I didn't read the entire case that Eye2 posted, but a quick glance revealed it was about an illegal search defense. I'm assuming the defendant stashed some illegal contraband in another person's property and attempted to assert in court that his rights were violated by an illegal police search which turned up the item. The likely result was the court found the defendant's belongings were not the ones searched, and as a result, he did not receive an injury that would give him standing to raise an illegal search defense. Just as I could not sue one person for damage caused to my neighbor's car, in a criminal case you cannot claim your rights were violated by an illegal search of another's property. In both cases, there is no standing.
Even though standing comes up in criminal cases, the problem is created by the fact that it never involves the prosecutor, which is the way Marc wants to apply it. Marc is essentially arguing that you can get out of certain crimes, like a drug possession crime, by claiming the State does not have standing because they received no injury, but there has never been a case where the court has found the state lacked standing in a criminal trial. This is incredibly remarkable if Marc's claims are true. You would think throughout the entire history of the legal system it would have happened at least one time if it were possible. Based on this fact, we can conclude the argument does not work.
Now we need to figure out why. We have two possible explanations.
1. Standing does not apply in criminal cases.
This is likely incorrect. It explains why we never see criminal cases dismissed for lack of standing, but as Eye2 already pointed out, standing does come up in criminal cases. Therefore, it must be allowed, at least in some fashion, if it's going to come up at all. The more likely explanation is...
2. The State always has standing in a criminal case.
After much research, I found this to be the most likely conclusion. To see why, we need to start with a discussion of what standing really is.
The standing rule comes from the "Case or Controversy" requirement in the U.S. Constitution. A court is not supposed to hear a case unless there is some controversy they can resolve. Originally, standing developed in the civil context. If one person wanted to sue another, they needed to show there was a controversy that needed resolving. Because Civil Law is all about providing remedies, it made sense that there would be no controversy to resolve without an injury. If I try to sue a person for damaging my car, but my injuries amount to $0 worth in damage, there's no controversy for the court to hear. What is there for them to resolve? There was no damage. There's no remedy to provide.
The whole remedy process usually gives people the impression that Standing requires an actual, physical injury, but this is not true. The injury can also include the violation of a legal right. For example, you may sue a person for trespassing, even if they did not cause any physical damage to your property. Not only can you sue them, but you can sue them for actual damages and win. The idea is you have a legal right to maintain sole control and possession of your property, and when another person violates that right by setting foot on your property, they cause you an injury by invading your possession and control rights.
Now let's jump back to criminal law. Why would you find yourself the defendant of a criminal trial? You would be there because of an accusation that you committed a crime. What is a crime? A crime is essentially a legal duty to do or not do some act. You are legally required to refrain from murdering people, otherwise you commit a crime. You are legally required to pay taxes, otherwise you may be guilty of a crime. How are these crimes formed? Essentially through the voting process. Members of the state vote, either by way of a representative or through a direct vote, to make a particular action a crime. When they do this, they are creating a duty for all people within that State, but they are also creating a right for themselves. Just as we saw in trespassing, the owner of property has a right to maintain control and possession of their property, and all others have a duty to refrain from interrupting the property owner's control and possession. When the people of a state make murder a crime, they are creating a right for themselves to not be murdered, and they are creating a duty on all people within the State to refrain from murdering others.
If you are being accused of committing a crime, then you are being accused of violating a right the members of the State have created for themselves. If you are being accused of violating a right of the members of the State, then the State will have standing. Since every criminal case will involve a defendant accused of violating a crime, the State will always have standing.
So, in summary:
Standing does apply in criminal cases, but violation of a law of the State will always give the State standing to prosecute.
And before I get a bunch of angry responses, I just want to point out that I understand how disfavored the whole voting process is on this board. I'm not advocating any particular government system, I'm just explaining one of the legal concepts that is a product of that system. Far be it from me to force anyone to accept standing as some kind of all encompassing natural law that controls the entire universe. I'm just explaining how the concept has been stated to operate by members of the legal system.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-06-2010 06:26 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:When the people of a state make murder a crime, they are creating a right for themselves to not be murdered, and they are creating a duty on all people within the State to refrain from murdering others.
Ooooh...they are going to eat you UP on this one, my friend. I'm just gonna sit back with my popcorn and watch the destruction.
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-06-2010 07:18 AM
So... gang rape is okay? COOL!
- NonE :o
Re: Standing - indio - 12-06-2010 12:56 PM
Standing is probably the wrong word to call it for criminal cases. It is the "public" that is injured. If there is a statute against the particular act, a public injury will be rebuttably presumed. After all ,the public via there elected officials have declared that the act is injurious to them. It's up to a jury to decide the fact of it.
Standing goes to the real party in interest. If the injured party is the public at large, you'd have to demonstrate that the individual suing is a stranger to the public interest. Like some foreigner prosecuting a crime or something. I'm reasonably certain private parties can still prosecute crimes. It used to be allowed and I'm not aware of any case law or positive law that removed that right.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-06-2010 12:56 PM
Holip Wrote:Ooooh...they are going to eat you UP on this one, my friend. I'm just gonna sit back with my popcorn and watch the destruction.
NonEntity Wrote:So... gang rape is okay? COOL!
Re: Standing - indio - 12-06-2010 01:12 PM
I'll throw this out there for all to chew on. Maybe we should turn the tables? Some kidnapping charges might be in order.
Private Prosecution: A Remedy for District Attorneys' Unwarranted Inaction
Source: The Yale Law Journal
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-06-2010 01:19 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:Standing does apply in criminal cases, but violation of a law of the State will always give the State standing to prosecute
First things first. Am I to understand that you have taken the $5000.00 reward/challenge and are now $5000.00 richer?
indio Wrote:I'll throw this out there for all to chew on. Maybe we should turn the tables? Some kidnapping charges might be in order.P.S. Oh, and let me just throw this out there. I have never seen Marc advocate activity that does actual injury and damage, such as kidnapping, or murder. I've only known the issues to be where there is no ACTUAL complainant other than purportedly THE STATE, THE COUNTY, or THE CITY.
Although there is no doubt in my mind since it is either of those three that bring the action (in hi-jacking the real party in interest's claim) the issues remain the same.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-06-2010 01:35 PM
indio Wrote:Standing goes to the real party in interest. If the injured party is the public at large, you'd have to demonstrate that the individual suing is a stranger to the public interest.
1. The burden of proof is on the claimant.
2. If only the "real party in interest" has "standing," and the "public at large" is another fictional concept (like THE STATE), how do you cross-examine a fiction as the "real party in interest" against you?
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-06-2010 05:13 PM
NonEntity Wrote:So... gang rape is okay? COOL!
C'mon NonEntity! You know I didn't say that!
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-06-2010 05:32 PM
indio Wrote:Standing is probably the wrong word to call it for criminal cases. It is the "public" that is injured. If there is a statute against the particular act, a public injury will be rebuttably presumed. After all ,the public via there elected officials have declared that the act is injurious to them. It's up to a jury to decide the fact of it.
I used to think so too, but after discussions with Marc I'm starting to think otherwise. Considering standing is satisfied in the civil context by violation of a right, and a crime is nothing more than an attempt to create a right, commission of a crime would appear to satisfy the standing requirement quite easily. It's not that standing doesn't apply in criminal cases, or that it's no longer called standing, it's just that the State will always have standing if you commit a crime because committing a crime is the violation of a legal right.
It might be helpful to think of it in terms of property rights, since that appears to be the nearest equivalent in the civil context.
Every individual has control over their own property, and can choose who else can use it and in what manner. Violation of this right of control is an injury that creates standing, even if no damage or monetary loss has occurred. I can forbid anyone from stepping onto my property, or I can allow people onto my property under certain conditions. Businesses do this all the time. You're free to enter their property between the hours of 9AM to 5 PM, but if you enter at any other time, it's trespassing.
Similarly, criminal law essentially does act as a law of public rights, as Marc has been saying. The citizens of a State get to decide the rules of that State. Just as the private owner of a property can determine in which manner you may enter or use his property, the people of a State can choose the rules that everyone must abide by when entering the State. Violation of these rules results in an injury, even if there's no physical damage, just as violation of a private property right results in an injury, despite the lack of damage to the property.
Really, the mistake that's being made is not that standing doesn't apply to criminal cases, the mistake is about which actions will constitute an injury in which contexts.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-06-2010 05:50 PM
Nomos Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote:Standing does apply in criminal cases, but violation of a law of the State will always give the State standing to prosecute
Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder? $5,000 reward/challenge? If you're offering I humbly accept. ;D
Nomos Wrote:indio Wrote:I'll throw this out there for all to chew on. Maybe we should turn the tables? Some kidnapping charges might be in order.P.S. Oh, and let me just throw this out there. I have never seen Marc advocate activity that does actual injury and damage, such as kidnapping, or murder. I've only known the issues to be where there is no ACTUAL complainant other than purportedly THE STATE, THE COUNTY, or THE CITY.
It's true, Marc has never advocated crimes like kidnapping or murder. The problem is his logic can be used for those situations as well. Let's say we have a murder, but the victim is a vagrant with no property or family ties. Who brings the charges? The victim can't. He's dead. The family can't, they don't exist. Creditors can't, the victim has presumably died with no assets to recover.
Are we going to allow the State to bring the action in that instance? On what grounds? What injury has the State suffered? There's no standing. The only conceivable way to allow this action is to claim the murder was a violation of a public right, set in place to protect the public, and now the public may bring charges through the state for violation of this right.
Once we make this allowance, it's impossible to forbid the public to bring charges for violation of a public right in other instances. You want to claim the public had standing when someone gets murdered, but not when someone breaks a drug law. What's the difference? In either case, it's not the public that got injured, it was the victim, so what right does the public have to bring the action? If you allow it in one instance, how can you not allow it in both? That's like saying when it's a murder charge, the injury doesn't matter, but when it's a drug charge the injury makes all the difference in the world.