Standing

[brianroberts]

I'm not really seeing a connection in all these cases of standing pertaining to criminal cases. Can someone explain?

I understand standing in civil cases, because of the Standing to sue doctrine. But, I see no connection to crimnal.

Am I to believe you can win a criminal case by using civil court decisions? >

Look up standing in Blacks law, no reference to crimnal.

I'm not seeing the connection here. IT jumps from "corpus delecti" to "standing" without showing the connection.

I may be missing something here, but I know a judge is going to ask the same thing. What exactly is one to say "it's all the same judge".?

[eye2i2hear]

Montana Scott Wrote:I'm not really seeing a connection in all these cases of standing pertaining to criminal cases. Can someone explain?

I understand standing in civil cases, because of the Standing to sue doctrine. But, I see no connection to crimnal.
...
I may be missing something here, but I know a judge is going to ask the same thing. What exactly is one to say "it's all the same judge".?

Does this help (i.e. the actual cited references): Marc's Standing Cross Reference ?

[brianroberts]

No, that's what I'm looking at. Im only seeing Marcs opinion of standing from civil rulings apply to criminal. Perhaps I'm missing something.

[eye2i2hear]

I just wanted to be sure that was what you were referring to. I looked up 'standing' in Black's too and see what your pointing out. Ballentine's has a 'standing' entry apart from 'standing to sue' but it seems pretty generic and doesn't, for me, address the civil versus criminal aspects specifically:

Ballentine's 3rd, page 1209 Wrote:Standing. The position of a person in reference to his capacity to act in a particular instance, for example, the standing of a person to maintain a derivative action.

Acknowledging that all this 'legal' bit tends to fog me, it appears particularly from the cite of Am Jur Marc has there, indeed, criminal and civil do converge on the core factors, and so Standing seems easily enough common/essential/crucial to them both. [not to get into how some 'thing' that doesn't exist factually, can stand via re-"present"ation viz "criminal"s essential distinction; which possibly connects to the importance of keeping in mind, that the issue of 'standing' is but one of many amongst the contradictions within the State of mind(s) relying on make-believe (enforcement of belief)? aka con+fusing; to con + to fuse]

[brianroberts]

Well, I'd love to see some facts on the two being connected. I'm not seeing that, all I'm getting is opinion. Can anyone show me the law or case law that says that standing in a civil action is the same as criminal.

I mean really, what are you going to tell the judge? "I read it on some website", shit, that will go over real good.

The more I'm looking into the argument, the weaker it is becoming.

[Marc Stevens]

Montana Scott Wrote:No, that's what I'm looking at. Im only seeing Marcs opinion of standing from civil rulings apply to criminal. Perhaps I'm missing something.

I probably should be a bit clearer in that cross-reference. I have plenty of criminal citations in the cross-reference though. What is important is the PR that governments are established to protect rights, that is the foundation of the courts jurisdiction whether civil or criminal.

[brianroberts]

Marc Stevens Wrote:

Montana Scott Wrote:No, that's what I'm looking at. Im only seeing Marcs opinion of standing from civil rulings apply to criminal. Perhaps I'm missing something.

I probably should be a bit clearer in that cross-reference. I have plenty of criminal citations in the cross-reference though. What is important is the PR that governments are established to protect rights, that is the foundation of the courts jurisdiction whether civil or criminal.

Well, it would be helpfull, because I can't believe every single judge that this comes to isn't asking where that connection is.

You have criminal citations for Corpus Delicti, I don't see any cases pertaining to standing in a crimiinal proceeding. Like I said, I may be missing something.

Crimes are governed by the Rules of Criminal proceedure, civil cases are governed by the Rules of Civil Proceedure. I still don't see how you can possibly expect a judge to buy into the theory "it's all the same".

I mean really, we seen this in the OJ trial, they are two completely seperate systems. I never heard OJ's team bring civil rulings into his criminal trial.

You keep saying that "governments are there to protect individual rights". That's fine, but again, where are the FACTS that courts in criminal proceedings are there to protect individual rights.

Is the military implemented for the sole purpose of protecting the individual. No.
How about HUD, or the USDA? They are all part of government, just like courts.

One minute your saying "cops have no duty to protect", then in the same breath say that anything to do with government only purpose it to protect rights. which is it? a duty to protect individual rights or not?

Alteast that is what i'm getting out of all of this.

[eye2i2hear]

Montana Scott Wrote:One minute your saying "cops have no duty to protect", then in the same breath say that anything to do with government only purpose it to protect rights. which is it? a duty to protect individual rights or not?

Alteast that is what i'm getting out of all of this.

Which is it? Both!
FWIW, I don't hear Marc saying that he's saying (i.e. stating originally) either of these, but rather that They are saying/have said both.

[brianroberts]

eye2i2hear Wrote:

Montana Scott Wrote:One minute your saying "cops have no duty to protect", then in the same breath say that anything to do with government only purpose it to protect rights. which is it? a duty to protect individual rights or not?

Alteast that is what i'm getting out of all of this.

Which is it? Both!
FWIW, I don't hear Marc saying that he's saying (i.e. stating originally) either of these, but rather that They are saying/have said both.

Both? I'm not buying it. Either the government is there to protect individual rights or it's not.

And why can nobody show me the Facts that these civil cases being refered to have anything at all to do with a criminal case? I have not seen anything connecting to two. Where are the FACTS that you can use the argument on civil standing in criminal proceedings? That's a pretty simple question, and deserves a simple response.

[eye2i2hear]

Did you check this specific one out, per Marc's list:

Marc's Standing Cross Reference Wrote:“Standing relates to civil as well as criminal matters.” People v. Smith, 360 N.W.2d 841, 844-845 (Mich. 1984)

(I'm going solely by it's being listed as "People v Smith" i.e. criminal?)

I also noted this one:

Marc's Standing Cross Reference Wrote:"To establish one's standing to bring an action, "a party must demonstrate (1) that it has sustained a distinct and palpable injury, (2) that the injury was caused by the challenged conduct, and (3) that the injury is apt to be redressed by a remedy the court is prepared to give." City of Chattanooga v. Davis, 54 S.W.3d 248, 280 (Tenn. 2001). [highlight=#E6FF99][By the way, this is a criminal case, Marc Stevens][/highlight]

[I'm simply trying to learn myself "on the fly"]

[brianroberts]

Okay, that's great. But, if you can't find the case, you have to attach it to your paper work. I can find no reference to this case you mention other than articles by Marc.

Next. even if it does exist, has anyone bothered to sheperdize the damn thing to see if it's even case law?

You can't simply take someones word that this is how law works, copy and past off of a website. Good lord, I can see why judges get so pissed off.

Last, that case in from Michigan, it has nothing to do with where I live. The judge will shit can that case so fast it will make your head spin.

I just am not seeing this as a fruitfull argument. It seems more of opinion and no fact. If Marc were some big shot law profesor, I'd be more recepticle. But, he's not, as far as I know, he has no legal education. I don't see how saying "Marc Stevens said so" is going to work.

I need facts, and one case on the other side of the country isn't fact, it's one courts opinion.

Show me in criminal law that standing is the same as in civil. You can't because they are not. I never read any such theory when I studied criminal law.

The state makes the complaint, the judge decides if there is probable cause. That is it, that is all they need for standing. You can show me a million civil cases, they do not pertain.

Do you even have a probable cause hearing in civil? No! They do not entwine.

[Marc Stevens]

No one is saying to take my word as any kind of authority. If you read my posts, you see when I mention the establishment of government to protect rights it's pure BS, it's PR, not that it's true.

That is the PR for the establishment of government, that is the basis of a court's jurisdiction and why court opinions regarding cases always talk about injury, the violation of a legal right. A case refers to civil and criminal proceedings as crimes are "public torts" the only real differences are who prosecutes, burden of proof, unanimous jury verdict and possible jail time as punishment.

[brianroberts]

So we can never see facts of this? Just your opinion?

I'm more than a little upset right now Marc, beyond pissed off as a matter of fact.

This entire damn post was about: Put up or shut up.

All I've read is chckenshit circles. I need facts. WTF??

Enough. Prove it.

[brianroberts]

Hell, I got one better. Since I can see no court orders, and you sheeple talk in cirlces, head over here <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Legal_Self_Representation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Legal_Sel ... sentation/</a><!-- m -->

I will scan Marcs argument he sells, and the court response. I see nothing holding water but opinion. And I damn sure never paid for that.

[NonEntity]

Scott,

If I may, I'd like to try and clear the air a bit. They way I understand Marc's ideas (and, no, I've never applied them in court) they are intended as an education for you and I and other readers, not for the court. The education is that there is no factual basis behind the laws other than some people making declarations of their opinions and being willing to enforce them. This knowledge is immensely freeing personally. They are NOT a guaranteed method of getting what you want. He makes no such claim anywhere. As he makes it clear up front in the book, once you are called to court you have already lost and he is simply trying to show you methods of cutting your losses.

It appears from what you've said, that you are looking for "The Law," for some secure guarantee of right and wrong and such. I can only say to you that there is no such thing on the face of the earth. You may disagree with me on this, and I can say, Okay, you and I disagree. Nothing in life is for sure. This certainly includes the "justice" system. If you can see Marc's ideas for what they are, and not for what you want them to be, then you may find some value in them. If this is outside of your world view, then, no, you will not find them of value as they are not a guarantee of a perfect world nor of a perfect method of finding perfect justice in a sane and rational and accountable justice system. Such system is nonexistent.

Those are my thoughts. I hope that may help some.

- NonE