RealSkinny Wrote:I finally get to use this face -->

RealSkinny Wrote: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?

Nomos Wrote:

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.

~Nomos

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?

RealSkinny Wrote:

Nomos Wrote:

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.

~Nomos

You'll hear no argument from me if you think the government abuses their authority. I just don't think the standing argument is a winner. I keep forgetting winning isn't the point.

RealSkinny Wrote: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?

RealSkinny Wrote: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.

RealSkinny Wrote:You'll hear no argument from me if you think the government abuses their authority. I just don't think the standing argument is a winner. I keep forgetting winning isn't the point.

WorBlux Wrote:Factually what is authority?

WorBlux Wrote:Factually what is authority?

Quote:The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

RealSkinny Wrote:You'll hear no argument from me if you think the government abuses their authority. I just don't think the standing argument is a winner. I keep forgetting winning isn't the point.

Quote:Civil actions: “‘California follows the ‘primary right theory’ of Pomeroy: ‘Every judicial action must therefore involve the following elements: a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, and a corresponding primary duty devolving upon the defendant; a delict or wrong done by the defendant which consisted in a breach of such primary right and duty; a remedial right in favor of the plaintiff, and a remedial duty resting on the defendant springing from this delict, and finally the remedy or relief itself. ... Of these elements, the primary right and duty and the delict or wrong combined constitute the cause of action. . . .’ (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 24, p. 85, original italics.)’” Bush v. Superior Court (Rains) (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 382]

“The court noted that ‘under the ‘primary right’ theory of pleading followed in California, a cause of action is based upon the injury suffered by a plaintiff, regardless of the particular legal theory or theories upon which plaintiff seeks redress.” (197 Cal.App.3d at p. 388; see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 795 [126 Cal.Rptr. 225, 543 P.2d 593].)” Jenkins v. Pope (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1292; [266 Cal.Rptr. 557]

“'The duty of this 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. ... No stipulation of parties or counsel whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.'” (citing California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314 [13 S.Ct. 876, 37 L.Ed. 747, 748]) Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 810

Quote:Criminal actions: “In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself - i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.” People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 285 [quoting People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903].

“The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause [citations omitted] there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court (Plascencia) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409; [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793]. (Bold, italics, underline and color relief added.)

Nomos Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:You'll hear no argument from me if you think the government abuses their authority. I just don't think the standing argument is a winner. I keep forgetting winning isn't the point.

I think you also miss the point. Once you've been accused, although you may be "successful" in "defending" you have not "won." Because you won't get compensated from the time you lost having to deal with the matter, nor can you ever get that time back. This is equally offensive if you take into account that there shouldn't have been any charges in the first place.

WorBlux Wrote:If you'd just read the damn spooner tract, you'd know that there are several legal deficiencies in that theory.

RealSkinny Wrote:I believe in England it's customary for the loser to pay court costs. For some reason this never caught on in America. Maybe this is the reason our country seems so lawsuit happy.

Nomos Wrote:Well, I've found a case I've been looking for.

For those who have been trying to draw a distinction between standing in civil and criminal cases, I submit the following in support of the proposition that it doesn't matter (I am in California, therefore I will be using California decision:

Quote:Civil actions: “‘California follows the ‘primary right theory’ of Pomeroy: ‘Every judicial action must therefore involve the following elements: a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, and a corresponding primary duty devolving upon the defendant; a delict or wrong done by the defendant which consisted in a breach of such primary right and duty; a remedial right in favor of the plaintiff, and a remedial duty resting on the defendant springing from this delict, and finally the remedy or relief itself. ... Of these elements, the primary right and duty and the delict or wrong combined constitute the cause of action. . . .’ (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 24, p. 85, original italics.)’” Bush v. Superior Court (Rains) (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 382]

“The court noted that ‘under the ‘primary right’ theory of pleading followed in California, a cause of action is based upon the injury suffered by a plaintiff, regardless of the particular legal theory or theories upon which plaintiff seeks redress.” (197 Cal.App.3d at p. 388; see Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d 791, 795 [126 Cal.Rptr. 225, 543 P.2d 593].)” Jenkins v. Pope (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1292; [266 Cal.Rptr. 557]

“'The duty of this 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. ... No stipulation of parties or counsel whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.'” (citing California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314 [13 S.Ct. 876, 37 L.Ed. 747, 748]) Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 810

Quote:Criminal actions: “In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself - i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.” People v. Sapp (2003) 31 Cal.4th 240, 285 [quoting People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903].

“The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause [citations omitted] there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476.

“As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury.” People v. Superior Court (Plascencia) (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 409; [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793]. (Bold, italics, underline and color relief added.)

Now there it is. It doesn't matter if it's a "civil" action OR "criminal" action, standing is is required before process may be invoked.

ADDENDUM: Reviewing Marc's Standing References, page, low and behold, the cases above are listed. So, I think this is a prime example of why "comprehension" of what's being said is mandatory. There's a whole page with every state saying the same thing, and that reference page has been there for more than a year. So why is this still being debated?

RealSkinny Wrote:Now here's something I do know about. Standing and Corpus Delicti are not the same. If you'll notice, the requirement for Standing is different. It requires that an injury be suffered by a plaintiff. Corpus delicti does not have this requirement.