Standing

[WorBlux]

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.

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?

...

If the law doesn't exist, then how can we say the court is contradicting itself by not following it?

Because they claim to have authority by virtue of law. They want everything they do to have the appearance of justice while actually operating by coercion, because people aren't so nonchalant and docile as to submit to naked usurpation.

Anyways say if I was really responsible to somebodies protection, in a legal and factual manner. Lets just take a child and a parent. The family is the smallest corporation or political body possible and it is well recognized that a parent has a responsibility to provide his or her child protection. If you steal from my (hypothetical) child while he is still a minor, I may file a suit in his stead against you, due first to that natural responsibility and duty I hold towards the child, and secondly because the courts don't tend to entertain suits by minors. But it must be a child for whom my parental rights and interests are present rather than terminated or abandoned by the coming of age or by other means.

Just to prove standing is a jurisdictional requirement of both criminal and civil law.... If Smith intentionally and maliciously causes the death of Jones, but neither Smith or Jones were citizens of the Nation-State Hypothetica, and niether of them were in the Nation-State Hypothetica at that time, would the courts of Nation-State Hypothetica have jurisdiction to try Smith for murder? We know at minimum that the prosecution must prove some tie of Smith or Jones to the political body and thus the assumed allegiance or protection respectively in order to take jurisdiction.

What we can say is the the test of standing and test of negligence are overlapping tests. The elements of negligence are arranged in such a way to overlap and fulfill the primary requirements of standing (injury and causation). Negligence is a test for weather a specific cause of action or if standing could be achieved under this specific legal theory. From everything I've seen for the case/controversy requirement, the principles of the Declaration of Independence established through the enabling acts and concertized in several state's constitutions like Arizona's, and hundreds of cases defining the judicial power , clarifying that courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies, and plainly stating an injury requirement point to standing or the injury and causation requirement the foundation test and basis of all subject matter jurisdiction. This would mean that the corpus delecti requirement is an extension or specification of the that requirement, and the elements of say theft is an even further extension of specification. The challenge being brought forth is weather it's extension is proper or not to malum prohititum offenses, especially in light of the fact that what government there is now is not based on consent or even actual protection.