Standing

[Nomos]

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:“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.”

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.