Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No corpus delicti no case.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Drug Policy Donate to DU
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 04:43 PM
Original message
No corpus delicti no case.
Edited on Fri Nov-06-09 05:28 PM by Xicano
{Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am only posting this for discussion purposes}


---

Without a valid cause of action there's no corpus delicti. If there's no corpus delicti a case has no standing. There are numorus cases dealing with corpus delicti and all say the same thing. Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff has no standing.

In order to have a corpus delicti a case requires a valid "cause of action." A valid cause of action requires three elements. The three elements are: 1) a violation of a legal right, 2) damage or injury, 3) redress-ability by the court.

If the prosecutor fails to meet all three elements required to file a valid cause of action, then, the prosecutor has no standing, thus, the court has no jurisdiction.

After establishing no one's legal rights have been violated everything after that is besides the point.

For example:

Pretend you're in court as a defendant who was arrested for having a couple baggies of weed. Before anything else I'd ask the judge does corpus delicti apply in this case? They can only answer yes because corpus delicti literally is the essence of the supposed criminal act.

Then I'd ask the prosecutor "did you file a valid cause of action against me?" Of course the prosecutor will have to answer yes, because, if they answered no, then, they just said they don't have a valid case against you.

So after they answer yes, I'd ask them "how many elements are required to file a valid cause of action?" Any argument by the prosecutor as to why that is not germane to the case is flatly wrong because these elements are central to the case. So of course they're gonna have to answer that there's three required elements.

Then I'd ask the prosecutor what are these three elements. By answering, the prosecutor themselves are gonna be impeaching their own case because they will not be able to cite an injury or damage, or, a violation of a legal right to anybody.

They will not have any evidence of a complaining party, nor will they be able to cite an imagined aggregate known as a state as the injured party because the government itself through numerous cases has ruled the government isn't obligated to protect the public. This is as a result of protecting the government from lawsuits when they fail to protect, even in cases where there was a restraining order.

Basically what is going on here is the constitution lays out why we have a government, which is to protect and maintain "individual rights." Well, that then is also what the jurisdiction of the court and the police is gonna be limited to. Anything beyond that is acting in ultra vires.

So these become central questions as to what the court is doing. That's why all the cases on standing and corpus delicti deal on violation of a legal right.

So, say, if you were growing a backyard full of weed, have you violated anyone's legal rights? No. So does the court have jurisdiction, or, the plaintiff have standing? No and no.

These are points that the courts are not happy to get into because they don't like getting into their own rules when their own rules don't benefit them.

This kind of defending of your rights will likely prompt intervention and threats from the judge. If that were to happen I'd have a few questions for the judge. Of course all while maintaining a level of honor so as not to get into a condition of conflict to stave off a valid charge of contempt.

The questions I'd ask the judge if he or she was trying to intervene against my questions with regard to my rights. I'd first ask the judge if I had a right to a fair trial. After he answered that yes I do, then, I'd ask the judge if it were possible for me to get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest.

Of course he or she would have to answer that no I could not get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest because there'd be an inherent interest against me.

Then I'd ask the judge who is it that he or she represents? And then ask isn't it a conflict of interest to have a judge, who represents the state who is the pretended plaintiff against me, intervene with my asking the plaintiff questions regarding my rights?



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=198325969631851...



Peace,
Xicano



{Edit} Correction on two misspelled words.
Refresh | +2 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. Kewell. Can you tell me how I can stop paying taxes, now??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. The logic breaks down with...
"...nor will they be able to cite an imagined aggregate known as a state as the injured party because the government itself through numerous cases has ruled the government isn't obligated to protect the public."

Just because the government isn't obligated to protect the public doesn't mean that it can't do so and that the state can't be the injured party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Xicano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-06-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Actually no it doesn't. It all has to do with state constitutions, numerous court rulings.
I provided a video link that will get into that area and show that the logic stands. We're not talking dicta here, we're talking numerous court rulings. Again, the half hour video gets into it and does a good job at showing there has to be an individual damage or injury.

The government is limited to the powers they are granted. Governments are created for "the protection of individual rights." If governments are created for the reason to maintain and protect individual rights, then, that is the limit of their jurisdiction.

This point and others are made on the video link I provided. If after watching it and you still are not convinced, that's ok. Most people now days fail to defend their rights.

Anyway, thanks for the response. I do enjoy reading all points of view.


Thanks Eric J.
Xicano
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 21st 2019, 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Drug Policy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC