Standing

[RealSkinny]

WorBlux Wrote:If there was a real, factual, and legal tie between Jones's rights or interests and your own, then yes he would have standing.

And if there was no legal tie, he wouldn't. Therefore, we can have a battery and still not have standing. So how can we say every legal doctrine that requires an injury is interchangeable? Just because we have a crime (corpus delicti) doesn't mean we have Standing.

WorBlux Wrote:And the second issue here is in a partly factual sense which you use the term battery. Charmingly enough it leans to a bit of natural law theory when you argue this way. You believe smith can be said to have committed battery without a court having given their opinion that smith committed battery. In the positivist sense which you've largely argued from, there is no basis on which to say you successfully proved that anyone committed battery without such a legal opinion being issued by a competent court. In order for smith to have actually committed battery in the positivist sense you need to have it declared by a court with jurisdiction. Therefore a positivist must include jurisdictional requirements into the elements of any crime or tort to be consistent. When you admit there can be such a thing as the tort or crime of battery without any specific "authorized" legal opinion of it being such you are moving into natural law theory in which an action my violate the principles of justice weather it is recognized as doing so or not.

Well to get into court we just need the claim that a battery has occurred and that the plaintiff has standing. So, if you prefer, you can create a sufficient claim for battery without creating a sufficient claim for standing.