Standing

[RealSkinny]

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?