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 - Nomos - 12-06-2010 06:18 PM
RealSkinny Wrote: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.
I think you have something there Real. In the words of the courts, "it's not the 'label' that is controlling, but the substance."
I've given this analogy before, but I'll do it again
Theft is the criminal label for "taking property without permission" and Conversion is the civil label. Both are essentially the same act.
Quote:Conversion is defined to be an act of willful interference with personal property, done without lawful justification, by which any person entitled thereto is deprived of the use and possession of the personal property [Citation] . Alternatively, conversion is said to result from any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his or her rights therein [Citation].
Quote:The elements of theft by larceny are well settled: the offense is committed by every person who (1) takes possession (2) of personal property (3) owned or possessed by another, (4) by means of trespass and (5) with intent to steal the property, and (6) carries the property away.[Citation]
So, although the label "standing" is usually heard in the civil context. Corpus delecti is the the label in criminal actions. Both essentially require the same elements.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-06-2010 06:38 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder? $5,000 reward/challenge? If you're offering I humbly accept. ;D
Well, Marc and (another whose name I can't recall at this instant) posed a challenge with a reward of $5000 for anyone who can prove with FACTS that there is a STATE. But, I'm not backing up. ;D
RealSkinny Wrote: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.
The difference is that one has a victim, and the other doesn't. The ratio between victimLESS crimes and crimes WITH victims are grossly disproportionate on the side of victimLESS.
The difference is I get to travel around where I want without getting harassed, and without the threat of being shot and killed by those claiming to be "peace" officers. I'll take that over "being protected" ANY day!
Have you done any research on tort law? The premise of tort law is "[g]enerally a person owes no duty of care to control the conduct of another person or to warn those endangered by such conduct." [Citation.]
This is how everything operates under this system. Google (now it's your turn :bootyshake the phrase "no duty to protect" and read some of the cases where time after time it has been ruled that there is no duty [of law enforcement] to protect.
Me, my self, I didn't say it's cool for one, but not the other, (but given the choice, I choose no standing PERIOD. I just made the point because, no one likes to be violated or attacked or injured or damaged, and I don't think Marc advocates it as well (he can speak for himself obviously), but an observation of the FACTS shows that yes even murder or kidnapping (to use you and indio's parameters) face the same demise when charged by "THE STATE." Marc, nor I, nor NonE, nor you or indio, or anyone else came up with this. This is the scheme of things from your beloved STATE.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-06-2010 10:39 PM
RealSkinny Wrote: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.
That's because it does. In a murder the non-aggression principle has been violated and the person actually took the life of another person. I don't think there is an argument about an injury, especially if the body is there as evidence. If we are talking about "the good of the whole" or a "public good" I can't imagine any person making the argument they want a murderer to go free with a dead body present or Corpus Delecti satisfied. In a drug charge, where is the injury specifically and how does a person smoking weed hurt the public good? Where is the Corpus Delecti? ???
Re: Standing - indio - 12-06-2010 11:38 PM
RealSkinny Wrote: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.
The STATE is not the public.
It has the same presumption to be acting in the public interest that any private person has. It's up to the actual public (a jury) to decide the truth of it.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-07-2010 04:57 AM
Nomos Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote:Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder? $5,000 reward/challenge? If you're offering I humbly accept. ;D
I'm not advocating the position, just explaining it. If you don't believe standing should apply at all, that's fine, but Marc is proposing making an argument using standing as it has been interpreted by the courts. I'm really just going over how they would likely interpret it.
It's true, the drug crime doesn't have a tangible injury and murder does, but Standing doesn't only require an injury. It requires an injury sustained by the plaintiff. If your car gets smashed up in an accident, I can't sue the person who wrecked your car. Even though there was an injury, the injury was not to me or my property, so I don't have standing to sue, despite the presence of a tangible injury.
Similarly, Marc's claim is that the State should not be able to prosecute drug crimes because they have sustained no injury, which means they don't have standing, but this argument carries over to murder as well. Who is injured in a murder? The victim. So how does the State get standing to bring the case forward? There was an injury, but not to them. Under the standing doctrine, if we are to interpret it the way Marc is proposing, the State should not be able to prosecute a murderer because they have sustained no injury as a result of the murder.
Although I'm positive Marc would never advocate murder, there's no reason why his proposed Standing defense wouldn't apply to murder cases as well. The only way to correct this problem is to change the very definition of Standing to require an injury but not to a specific person. Of course, once we do that, anyone can sue for anything. I can recover money from the guy who wrecks your car. It defeats the whole purpose of having standing.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-07-2010 05:09 AM
holipsism Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote: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.
This is beyond what I was talking about. Our current legal system doesn't require an aggression principle for a crime. If you wanted to apply one, that would be interesting, but for purposes of discussing standing it's not really relevant.
As I mentioned in the previous post, Standing doesn't require an injury, but rather an injury that is sustained by the plaintiff/prosecutor. If the prosecutor is trying to charge a defendant with murder, they can't just show there has been an injury. They must show there is an injury against the State. At least this is all according to Marc. I personally believe the injury can also be satisfied by violation of a legal right as well. This makes perfect sense to me because we allow it in civil law, so if we're going to allow standing in criminal law at all, it must also come with the ability to satisfy the injury with violation of a legal right. And what is a crime if not a violation of a legal right created by the State?
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-07-2010 05:15 AM
indio Wrote:The STATE is not the public.
Under our current system, the State does represent the public, for better or worse. It basically goes like this...
The public passes a law by voting for it.
A person breaks that law.
The State, acting on behalf of the public who created the law, brings charges against the violator.
And of course, a jury made up of that public gets to decide the final outcome, as you pointed out.
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-07-2010 07:28 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:Under our current system, the State does represent the public...
Factually, how did this relationship come about? Do you have evidence of a signed power of attorney from me, for instance?
You might find reading Lysander Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority to be a worthwhile mental exercise.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-07-2010 07:29 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:This is beyond what I was talking about. Our current legal system doesn't require an aggression principle for a crime.
Does it require a body?
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-07-2010 07:35 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:indio Wrote:The STATE is not the public.
No offense, but it sounds to me like you've never read Lysander Spooner before. So, you are basically giving the constitution mystical and magical powers over any other piece of paper ever created. So, let me ask you a question...
How does an agreement or arrangement BIND a child who was born today without that child ever consenting to it? Your argument is basically one that attempts to address and justify the inconvenience of having every single person in the society agree to whatever piece of paper the people posing as government draw up. I know that legal inconvenience must suck for the government, huh?
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-07-2010 09:22 PM
holipsism Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote:This is beyond what I was talking about. Our current legal system doesn't require an aggression principle for a crime.
Like a literal body? No. If someone steals from you, you don't need to present a dead body to the court before you can bring the action. Even murder doesn't require a dead body anymore. Establishing that someone has died is sufficient, even if the body cannot be recovered.
holipsism Wrote:you are basically giving the constitution mystical and magical powers over any other piece of paper ever created.
NonEntity Wrote:Factually, how did this relationship come about? Do you have evidence of a signed power of attorney from me, for instance?
I finally get to use this face -->
For the third time, I am not attempting to justify the Constitution as a binding document, the existence of a state, or any of these other completely unrelated questions.
Marc stated that the courts have interpreted the Standing doctrine one way. I said the courts have not interpreted the Standing doctrine that way.
I've not made a single comment or argument about the existence of a state or the binding power of the Constitution. I am completely perplexed by the fact that these questions keep coming up. Clearly everyone here has something stirring on their minds. For most people it's sex, but I guess on this board it's challenging statist validity.
Whenever Marc tells you guys you can beat a citation with a standing argument, do you pester him with questions about why you would bother making a standing argument when the state doesn't even exist?
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-07-2010 10:36 PM
Did someone mention sex? Who, where, when??? NOW you've got my interest! :biggrinblue:[/center]
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-07-2010 11:05 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:. . . there's no reason why his proposed Standing defense wouldn't apply to murder cases as well.I wasn't suggesting that you were advocating it, I'm doing some splanin' myself. However, you just made my point. Yes it could, would, and does apply.
I think it needs to be pointed out, and kept in mind, that it's not Marc's "claim," this is the court's position on the necessary elements in order to maintain a case in the courts. Marc has shined a spot light on it to show the true nature of government and its components. You about admit as much when you say that "the only way to correct this problem is to . . . ."
Also, I might add, I think anyone on this forum or elsewhere would agree that the desired relationship between this "public service" and everyone else is to be left alone, but if the service wants to take on the role of bounty hunter for murderers, rapists and thieves (and it wouldn't have to go far to start), there will probably not be a lot of challenges to that fatal flaw in their system, so long as this service doesn't do it in tyrannical fashion (good luck with that - can anyone say Stanford Experiment?).
But if you have someone who is falsely accused, which time has shown and proven to be not random freak occurrences, I would much rather have that flaw to my advantage. Additionally, with people more aware that they are the ones that actually have the responsibility of their own security and protection, I am confident that any transgressions will eventually reap whatever is sown and work themselves out. That is a law of nature. It would be naive to think that all violence and aggression can be stamped out by there being in existence a mega-force in charge of "justice," as violence and aggression is also a part of nature. There will always be a bully, but, there will always be one to "stand" up to that bully as well.
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-08-2010 10:39 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:holipsism Wrote:RealSkinny Wrote:This is beyond what I was talking about. Our current legal system doesn't require an aggression principle for a crime.
Do you realize you just answered your own question?
Re: Standing - holipsism - 12-08-2010 10:45 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:holipsism Wrote:
If someone stole something from me but there were no eye witnesses and no direct evidence obtained of the theft, and just a strong feeling I thought they stole it from me, I could bring a case against them. Would it go to trial?