Standing

[holipsism]

Montana Scott Wrote: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.

??? I'll be the first person to flame myself by stating I'm confused as to what the issue is.

Is your argument that STANDING is a matter of each court or judge's discretion and not the fundamental element of any case be it civil or criminal? If so, where is this FACT stated? Thank you in advance.

Holip :frobro: