RealSkinny Wrote:I think your description is rather biased. Who are the folks with the guns? I gather you're referring to the police, correct? And then you claim these same people create the laws. Is it the responsibility of the Police to create laws in our society?

I'm going to say that your description of how our government operates is factually incorrect. The police don't create the laws, and something doesn't become a crime because it causes an injury to the police.

NonEntity Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:I think your description is rather biased. Who are the folks with the guns? I gather you're referring to the police, correct? And then you claim these same people create the laws. Is it the responsibility of the Police to create laws in our society?

I'm going to say that your description of how our government operates is factually incorrect. The police don't create the laws, and something doesn't become a crime because it causes an injury to the police.

RealSkinny,

I'm blown away by your response here. I have to say that you appear either willfully stupid or unbelievably naive. "Who are the folks with the guns?" !!! :eekeek: Barry Obama hizownself said, on the record, that government is "A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory."

I thought you were seriously debating this issue, but I see that I've been mistaken. :rolleyes2: Bye!

- NonE

NonEntity Wrote:I thought you were seriously debating this issue, but I see that I've been mistaken. :rolleyes2: Bye!

- NonE

Quote:“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.)

RealSkinny Wrote:There are no cases in existence that say whether or not Standing applies to criminal law, so I can't just provide you with a case and settle this whole debate, but that is also the source of my skepticism. If there are no cases or statutes that say Standing applies in criminal law, then my own concern would be to walk into court and start referring to laws that don't exist.

RealSkinny Wrote:

WorBlux Wrote:If there was a real, factual, and legal tie between Jones's rights or interests and your own, then yes he would have standing.

And if there was no legal tie, he wouldn't. Therefore, we can have a battery and still not have standing. So how can we say every legal doctrine that requires an injury is interchangeable? Just because we have a crime (corpus delicti) doesn't mean we have Standing.

RealSkinny Wrote:

WorBlux Wrote:And the second issue here is in a partly factual sense which you use the term battery. Charmingly enough it leans to a bit of natural law theory when you argue this way. You believe smith can be said to have committed battery without a court having given their opinion that smith committed battery. In the positivist sense which you've largely argued from, there is no basis on which to say you successfully proved that anyone committed battery without such a legal opinion being issued by a competent court. In order for smith to have actually committed battery in the positivist sense you need to have it declared by a court with jurisdiction. Therefore a positivist must include jurisdictional requirements into the elements of any crime or tort to be consistent. When you admit there can be such a thing as the tort or crime of battery without any specific "authorized" legal opinion of it being such you are moving into natural law theory in which an action my violate the principles of justice weather it is recognized as doing so or not.

Well to get into court we just need the claim that a battery has occurred and that the plaintiff has standing. So, if you prefer, you can create a sufficient claim for battery without creating a sufficient claim for standing.

RealSkinny Wrote:

WorBlux Wrote:The problem is that case has a specific legal meaning. You can't get from mere assertion to evidence of injury in fact. You need evidence, the who,what, why, how and when. Commission of a crime (if it were true that State was what it claimed to be) entails an injury, but not every act alleged to be a crime entails an such an injury. Were you go wrong is that you assume drug possession to be a crime merely because the state alleges that it is so. As I demonstration I could file a suit against you claiming that you owe me for the labor of creating these replies. Just alleging that you've violated one of my rights by not paying me for this reply would be insufficient. I would have to show how such an act or failure to act on your part violated on of my rights, and if the right in question wasn't life, liberty, or property, I would also have to outlining how exactly I acquired that right before standing would be satisfied. (you go on to repeat this more or less later in the same post)

The creation of a crime is essentially the creation of a right. A community may create rights for itself. When a community votes to make drug possession illegal, they are basically creating a right to live in a drug free community. When you possess drugs, you violate this right. It's really no different than the "case or controversy" requirement itself. "Case or controversy" doesn't exist as a natural right or anything like that. There's no injury involved that would make anyone believe it's naturally established. It had to be created by the community for the community. If we had a community where they did not create the "case or controversy" requirement, we would not claim the right existed anyway. That community would probably operate free of any "case" requirements, until they decided to create some.

RealSkinny Wrote:I don't feel like this changes what I've said. Did the State have a law that said police owe restitutions if they fail to follow a mandatory arrest statute and the person to be arrested causes an injury? If not, then how is the duty created? I think even if we tried to sue based on some kind of negligence, it would fail. The idea that police can prevent every single crime is far too unrealistic to claim such a duty exists.

RealSkinny Wrote:Here's a question. What if the Nation passed a new federal law tomorrow that stated every time a person is murdered, the Police of that county owe damages to the victim's estate? Now there would be no question that a duty exists. Do you think the Courts would still refuse to recognize it?

RealSkinny Wrote:The reason I ask is because I personally believe the reason Courts claim no duty to protect is because this duty does not exist, but I get the impression you think the duty certainly exists, but it's being ignored. If the nation passed the statute mentioned above, do you think the courts would still ignore it?

NonEntity Wrote:Barry Obama hizownself said, on the record, that government is "A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory."
- NonE

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.)

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.)

Quote:..a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, and a corresponding primary duty devolving upon the defendant;..

Nomos Wrote:That case [People v. Superior Court], is clearly "a case," is clearly "criminal," and clearly states that "STANDING" is a "general principal."

Quote:A forfeiture proceeding is a civil in rem action

WorBlux Wrote:You do need to set out facts sufficient for a judge to see how it could possibly be battery and tell him that is what you intend to prove, but it is never "battery" until the final judgment.

WorBlux Wrote:How do you create a right without an agreement?

WorBlux Wrote:This is even less of a duty than your average passerby who might be charged with conspiracy if he didn't report it.

WorBlux Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:Here's a question. What if the Nation passed a new federal law tomorrow that stated every time a person is murdered, the Police of that county owe damages to the victim's estate? Now there would be no question that a duty exists. Do you think the Courts would still refuse to recognize it?

Probably not, but as I pointed out earlier that there would still be deficiencies in trying to prove the existence of a real body politic. (No consent)

WorBlux Wrote:I asked him before factually what is authority, and didn't get an answer from him (Real Skinny)

n2q0 Wrote:Well, this was my understanding, which may very well be totally incorrect.

n2q0 Wrote:Civil:
"...a cause of action is based upon the injury suffered by a plaintiff..."


Criminal:
"(1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm"
If I murder someone, the "State" has standing as the murdered person has been harmed.

indio Wrote:The basis of the State regulating the highways is that driving is rebuttably a dangerous nuisance.
I'm not sure how corpus delecti applies to nuisances.

NonEntity Wrote:

RealSkinny Wrote:I think your description is rather biased. Who are the folks with the guns? I gather you're referring to the police, correct? And then you claim these same people create the laws. Is it the responsibility of the Police to create laws in our society?

I'm going to say that your description of how our government operates is factually incorrect. The police don't create the laws, and something doesn't become a crime because it causes an injury to the police.

RealSkinny,

I'm blown away by your response here. I have to say that you appear either willfully stupid or unbelievably naive. "Who are the folks with the guns?" !!! :eekeek: Barry Obama hizownself said, on the record, that government is "A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory."

I thought you were seriously debating this issue, but I see that I've been mistaken. :rolleyes2: Bye!

- NonE

RealSkinny Wrote:

indio Wrote:The basis of the State regulating the highways is that driving is rebuttably a dangerous nuisance.
I'm not sure how corpus delecti applies to nuisances.

Probably about the same as Standing does in a civil case. If Nuisance can satisfy the injury requirement in Standing, it will probably satisfy it under Corpus Delicti as well.