+- 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 - RealSkinny - 12-10-2010 11:13 PM
Nomos Wrote: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.
I don't catch your meaning. Both civil and criminal actions have plaintiffs. Both have to have suffered injury, the difference is one is solely caused by bad motive.
Corpus delicti does not require it to be the plaintiff who suffered the injury. It just requires an injury. This means it's possible to satisfy the corpus delicti, but not standing. In the case of a murder, the victim does not bring the charges, the State does. That means while there is an injury, which satisfies the corpus delicti, the injury is not to the State/plaintiff, so it doesn't satisfy Standing. That's why it's important to know if standing applies in a criminal trial.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-10-2010 11:31 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:Corpus delicti does not require it to be the plaintiff who suffered the injury. It just requires an injury. This means it's possible to satisfy the corpus delicti, but not standing. In the case of a murder, the victim does not bring the charges, the State does. That means while there is an injury, which satisfies the corpus delicti, the injury is not to the State/plaintiff, so it doesn't satisfy Standing. That's why it's important to know if standing applies in a criminal trial.
Only the real party in interest can bring a claim, and not limited to civil actions, also, no one can grant or delegate rights they don't already have.
Second, another element is that the crime has to be committed "within the state." If no evidence can be provided proving the existence of a state, then how is the power to act achieved by "the state" other than by coercion?
Any action under the second by anyone other than heir would be the equivalent of a stranger claiming justification of force and violence on another's claim. Actually it's more than the equivalent, it is identical.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-11-2010 02:20 AM
Nomos Wrote:Only the real party in interest can bring a claim,
That's exactly what standing is.
Nomos Wrote:and not limited to civil actions
Well that's the real question, isn't it? Every criminal prosecution is raised by the State. So either Standing applies to criminal law and the State always has Standing, or Standing doesn't apply to Criminal Law and it doesn't matter whether the state has it or not.
Nomos Wrote:Second, another element is that the crime has to be committed "within the state." If no evidence can be provided proving the existence of a state, then how is the power to act achieved by "the state" other than by coercion?
I feel like that argument is akin to saying what evidence do we have that law exists? Or justice? Or morality?
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-11-2010 04:04 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:That's exactly what standing is.
Ok. Right.
RealSkinny Wrote:Well that's the real question, isn't it? Every criminal prosecution is raised by the State. So either Standing applies to criminal law and the State always has Standing, or Standing doesn't apply to Criminal Law and it doesn't matter whether the state has it or not.
I believe the criminal case posted earlier answers the question that standing applies to criminal law. But it seems as though you have a "all or nothing" perspective.
RealSkinny Wrote:I feel like that argument is akin to saying what evidence do we have that law exists? Or justice? Or morality?
Here, I believe you are superimposing your beliefs over what is. Neither you or I, or any member of this forum made the rules, developed these concepts or the operation of law, so for us to try and rationalize as to what argument is sensible or not is an exercise in futility.
You have read Marc's book correct? I ask because the title is "Adventures in Legal Land," where black is white, up is down, etc., etc.. I also ask because you have used the word "argument" several times. And if you really "get" what's being said, I believe you would know that there are no arguments raised, because ANY argument raised would just get shot down as an "interpretation." So questions are asked so that THEY can make all the determinations. Do you disagree that a question is not argument?
The challenge to standing developed from the court's decisions as part of the "necessary" elements of its power to act, not from Marc. Again, Marc placed a halogen spotlight on the propaganda, and let it expose itself for what it is.
Should any service purporting to serve the ends of justice be bound by morality and justness? Of course. Is that how it is? Definitely not. That was the whole point of the book and the questions that developed. To show that what is promoted is actually anything but, and stands in absolute contradiction of itself. Legal land. Starting with the ground floor to get in the door. Standing.
Re: Standing - RealSkinny - 12-11-2010 04:55 AM
Nomos Wrote:I believe the criminal case posted earlier answers the question that standing applies to criminal law. But it seems as though you have a "all or nothing" perspective.
Not true. First of all, it didn't say Standing applies to criminal law, it said Corpus Delicti applies to criminal law. Second of all, the elements are different. How can we reach the conclusion that corpus delicti and standing are the same when they don't even require the same elements?
None of your cases made any mention of a requirement that an injury be received by the plaintiff, but that is the most important element in Standing. The reason Corpus Delicti does not require this element is because the plaintiff in a criminal case is never the one who received the injury. The plaintiff in criminal law is always the state, not the victim.
Not only that, but corpus delicti and Standing are used to establish two different things. Corpus delicti is used to establish that the crime being charged has actually occurred. Standing is used to establish that the plaintiff has a right to bring the lawsuit.
The only thing Corpus Delicti and Standing have in common is that they both require an injury, but so do most crimes, every single tort, and every single breach of contract suit. We wouldn't say negligence and standing are identical legal concepts just because they share an injury requirement, so how do we reach the conclusion that Corpus Delicti and Standing are the same because they share an injury requirement?
Nomos Wrote:The challenge to standing developed from the court's decisions as part of the "necessary" elements of its power to act, not from Marc. Again, Marc placed a halogen spotlight on the propaganda, and let it expose itself for what it is.
This is basically what my whole position focuses on. Marc is claiming to show the contradiction in the courts by establishing that courts say one thing and then do something else. I just don't believe they've ever said what Marc claims they're saying. Montana whatsitsname wasn't the most friendly guy, but he did have one thing right. At no point has the court ever said the plaintiff is required to show standing in a criminal case, and yet Marc would have you believe they say it all the time.
How can you hope to show the contradiction and propaganda in the courts if they've never even made the contradictory statement Marc is accusing them of making? If I wanted to catch the court contradicting itself, I'd look at the Sixth Amendment or the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, but Standing? I think the whole thing is far fetched. Can anyone here honestly say they've seen a case or statute that requires the prosecution in a criminal trial to establish standing? If the law doesn't exist, then how can we say the court is contradicting itself by not following it?
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-11-2010 08:24 AM
First, I'm enjoying this conversation/debate, even though I'm having a really hard time making sense of much of it.
Second, the point of this particular post, is in regards to the statement made by Nomos:
Nomos Wrote:Any action under the second by anyone other than heir would be the equivalent of a stranger claiming justification of force and violence on another's claim. Actually it's more than the equivalent, it is identical.
I'm curious, Nomos, as to how I would fit into your above statement in regards to the murder of my friend. His friendship has been taken from me. All the plans we had made were null and void. How is this materially different from the loss suffered by an "heir?"
And let me note that I am curious as to both of your answers, 1) the legalistic one, and 2) your thinking as a human being.
- NonE
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-11-2010 08:34 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:I feel like that argument is akin to saying what evidence do we have that law exists? Or justice? Or morality?
I love this question! My personal position on these three is that they only exist as ideas, not as factual entities or conditions, such as gravity. As such, they are only valid amongst willing participants, otherwise they are simply the will of one (or a group) forced upon another (or others) unwilling participants, similar in concept, if not form, to rape.
This is the ENTIRE essence of the situation.
You nailed it, RealSkinny!
- NonE
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-11-2010 08:42 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:Not only that, but corpus delicti and Standing are used to establish two different things. Corpus delicti is used to establish that the crime being charged has actually occurred. Standing is used to establish that the plaintiff has a right to bring the lawsuit.
Lightbulb. This paragraph helps me gain clarity on the difference. Thanks.
- NonE
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-11-2010 08:58 AM
RealSkinny Wrote:This is basically what my whole position focuses on. Marc is claiming to show the contradiction in the courts by establishing that courts say one thing and then do something else. I just don't believe they've ever said what Marc claims they're saying.
Perhaps you are misreading Marc here. Marc points to the founding documents, the documents which establish the courts. He points to the words of the "state" constitution of Arizona, as an example (others vary, and he points this out) wherein it is stated:
Arizona Constitution Wrote:ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS[right](emphasis mine)[/right]
1. Fundamental principles; recurrence to
Section 1. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of
individual rights and the perpetuity of free government.
2. Political power; purpose of government
Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their
just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain
individual rights.
RealSkinny Wrote:Montana whatsitsname wasn't the most friendly guy, but he did have one thing right. At no point has the court ever said the plaintiff is required to show standing in a criminal case, and yet Marc would have you believe they say it all the time.
It is foundational to the system. They try and hide this. Marc points it out.
- NonE
Re: Standing - Marc Stevens - 12-11-2010 11:52 AM
I think I need to restate this clearer. The basis and limitation of every court, according to the PR, is the protect individual rights. This is why the courts are limited to only cases.
A case, is the violation of a legal right/breach of a legal duty; loss, harm damage, and redressibility.
While "standing" is a word used primarily in civil proceedings, it refers to a plaintiff's "right" to invoke the jurisdiction of the court on their behalf. If they have a case (injuria et damnum) then they have met a minimum requirement for the court to act. There are other issues such as ripeness and mootness, but I just don't have the time right now, maybe on the show today we can get into that.
Corpus delecti is, in my opinion, is the same way as saying standing. What is important, and this very clear in the motion templates, there is no case. There is no case regardless of the allegation by the cop. Allegations do not equal a case regardless of who makes the allegation. Keep in mind the only differences between a civil proceeding and criminal is 1. the nature/scope of the injuria; 2. jail time as punishment.
I invite all those participating and interested in this subject to call into the show.
Re: Standing - Nomos - 12-11-2010 01:51 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:None of your cases made any mention of a requirement that an injury be received by the plaintiff, but that is the most important element in Standing. The reason Corpus Delicti does not require this element is because the plaintiff in a criminal case is never the one who received the injury. The plaintiff in criminal law is always the state, not the victim.
Not only that, but corpus delicti and Standing are used to establish two different things. Corpus delicti is used to establish that the crime being charged has actually occurred. Standing is used to establish that the plaintiff has a right to bring the lawsuit.
That's six of one, a half dozen of the other. Isn't a crime by nature "injury?" If there was no crime, would there be a right to bring charges? What is required in every criminal trial?
Quote:âIn 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.â
RealSkinny Wrote:The only thing Corpus Delicti and Standing have in common is that they both require an injury, but so do most crimes, every single tort, and every single breach of contract suit. We wouldn't say negligence and standing are identical legal concepts just because they share an injury requirement, so how do we reach the conclusion that Corpus Delicti and Standing are the same because they share an injury requirement?
What does any of the above have to do with the right to "invoke judicial process?" It seems as though you are assigning attributes that are not of their characteristics. Standing, and corpus delicti are "jurisdictional" requirements. So yes, crimes, torts, breaches of contracts require injury, no argument, but, it doesn't matter (as it relates to our discussion) because without injury (for any of them), as plaintiff, you lose because they all "require" the necessary elements to "have the right to invoke judicial process." Whether it be "the state" or individual.
Then there's the real party in interest. If the state predicates all of its acts to be on behalf of its citizens, and THE STATE defines citizen as "one who owes allegiance in return for protection," but then hold that there is "no duty to protect," then who is "the state" acting on behalf of? Can't be the citizen. If they're not acting on behalf of "the citizen" then what gives agents of "the state" the right to invoke judicial process?
Are you saying that the term "plaintiff" has different meanings in civil and criminal actions?
NonEntity Wrote:I'm curious, Nomos, as to how I would fit into your above statement in regards to the murder of my friend. His friendship has been taken from me. All the plans we had made were null and void. How is this materially different from the loss suffered by an "heir?"
And let me note that I am curious as to both of your answers, 1) the legalistic one, and 2) your thinking as a human being.
We went over this in our 1-on-1. As far as my self is concerned as a human (not a human "being"), of course you've suffered a loss. But, as I've told you, I'm speaking from the perspective of "the system" as to what is presented by it, not MY opinion or perspective.
Working backwards: 2.) MY perspective is that this is an organized system of domination of which there is forced participation. Additionally, I feel "the state" is hi-jacking the claims of the victims, reducing them from victim to witnesses on its behalf, from which it (the state) profits and benefits, while providing minimal restitution (if at all) and satisfaction (if at all) to the victims.
1.) From an "as if" legalistic perspective. You would not be considered "in the eyes of the law" a party injured, or with a legally cognizable claim of loss or harm.
Re: Standing - WorBlux - 12-12-2010 03:04 PM
RealSkinny Wrote:... None of your cases made any mention of a requirement that an injury be received by the plaintiff, but that is the most important element in Standing. The reason Corpus Delicti does not require this element is because the plaintiff in a criminal case is never the one who received the injury. The plaintiff in criminal law is always the state, not the victim.
Not only that, but corpus delicti and Standing are used to establish two different things. Corpus delicti is used to establish that the crime being charged has actually occurred. Standing is used to establish that the plaintiff has a right to bring the lawsuit.
The only thing Corpus Delicti and Standing have in common is that they both require an injury, but so do most crimes, every single tort, and every single breach of contract suit. We wouldn't say negligence and standing are identical legal concepts just because they share an injury requirement, so how do we reach the conclusion that Corpus Delicti and Standing are the same because they share an injury requirement?
...
If the law doesn't exist, then how can we say the court is contradicting itself by not following it?
Because they claim to have authority by virtue of law. They want everything they do to have the appearance of justice while actually operating by coercion, because people aren't so nonchalant and docile as to submit to naked usurpation.
Anyways say if I was really responsible to somebodies protection, in a legal and factual manner. Lets just take a child and a parent. The family is the smallest corporation or political body possible and it is well recognized that a parent has a responsibility to provide his or her child protection. If you steal from my (hypothetical) child while he is still a minor, I may file a suit in his stead against you, due first to that natural responsibility and duty I hold towards the child, and secondly because the courts don't tend to entertain suits by minors. But it must be a child for whom my parental rights and interests are present rather than terminated or abandoned by the coming of age or by other means.
Just to prove standing is a jurisdictional requirement of both criminal and civil law.... If Smith intentionally and maliciously causes the death of Jones, but neither Smith or Jones were citizens of the Nation-State Hypothetica, and niether of them were in the Nation-State Hypothetica at that time, would the courts of Nation-State Hypothetica have jurisdiction to try Smith for murder? We know at minimum that the prosecution must prove some tie of Smith or Jones to the political body and thus the assumed allegiance or protection respectively in order to take jurisdiction.
What we can say is the the test of standing and test of negligence are overlapping tests. The elements of negligence are arranged in such a way to overlap and fulfill the primary requirements of standing (injury and causation). Negligence is a test for weather a specific cause of action or if standing could be achieved under this specific legal theory. From everything I've seen for the case/controversy requirement, the principles of the Declaration of Independence established through the enabling acts and concertized in several state's constitutions like Arizona's, and hundreds of cases defining the judicial power , clarifying that courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies, and plainly stating an injury requirement point to standing or the injury and causation requirement the foundation test and basis of all subject matter jurisdiction. This would mean that the corpus delecti requirement is an extension or specification of the that requirement, and the elements of say theft is an even further extension of specification. The challenge being brought forth is weather it's extension is proper or not to malum prohititum offenses, especially in light of the fact that what government there is now is not based on consent or even actual protection.
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-12-2010 03:33 PM
WorBlux Wrote:If Smith intentionally and maliciously causes the death of Jones, but neither Smith or Jones were not citizens of the Nation-State Hypothetica, and...[right](emphasis mine)[/right]
Wouldn't it have been clearer just to say that they were both citizens? Or do you mean they were some completely different characterization?
- NonE
Re: Standing - NonEntity - 12-12-2010 03:48 PM
WorBlux Wrote:Negligence is a test for weather...
Is this a specific reference to Minnesota today? :biggrinblue:
- NonE
Re: Standing - WorBlux - 12-12-2010 09:38 PM
NonEntity Wrote:WorBlux Wrote:If Smith intentionally and maliciously causes the death of Jones, but neither Smith or Jones were not citizens of the Nation-State Hypothetica, and...[right](emphasis mine)[/right]
Wouldn't it have been clearer just to say that they were both citizens? Or do you mean they were some completely different characterization?
- NonE
You know the funny thing is that I had it right for the first draft, and then for some darned reason I inserted the not when I read over the post to check my work. Thanks for catching it anyways.