Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 No, Levi, that is wrong. The State of New York is legally a corporate fiction that a person may contract with, but has limited legal standing. Please research the issue of legal standing. Courts frequently rule that the defendant does not consent to trial. The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”
Sig1Hunter Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Jim, it is not my approach to the law, it is the law. Which law is this again? Statute number? USC number? Article of the US Constitution? Supreme Court case law? Enlighten me, please.
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) New York State is not a person. One of two requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…” Has the “State of New York” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a “personal injury” by not wearing a seatbelt, etc? Of course not: that’s one essential element missing, The pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Allegations or not, there is no injury to anyone if I don't wear a seatbelt, speed, etc.
LeviF Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 No, Levi, that is wrong. The State of New York is legally a corporate fiction that a person may contract with, but has limited legal standing. Please research the issue of legal standing. Courts frequently rule that the defendant does not consent to trial. The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” I see now. Allen v. Wright was a civil suit. Everything you've been saying about "standing" applies to civil suits. In civil suits, you may not sue on behalf of a third party or the rights of a third party. Criminal procedure in the United States includes the ability of the government to bring criminal charges against an individual or party.
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Standing is derived from the same powers in any case, and criminal is more restrictive than civil. Because in civil law when you contract with the government or another person you accept their terms as part of the contract.
Sig1Hunter Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) New York State is not a person. Right. I read the case. However you are reading the standing to bring a civil lawsuit in the same manner as the right of the government to bring criminal charges. These are two completely different things. Furthermore, had the Supreme Court intended for this decision to apply to criminal cases it would have a clearly defined case law tree saying as much. But, it doesn't. There are no criminal cases before the Supreme Court where the Court references this case as controlling or even influencial. Add to that this case is from 1984 and nothing has come from it, and I think it is plainly clear that you have totally misunderstood the Court's ruling and it's applicability (or lack thereof) to criminal cases.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Jim, it is not my approach to the law, it is the law. Confused. I thought that was my point. You are the one who advocates breaking the law, and becomes upset when it is enforced. Yes it is the law. Deal with it or work to change it and working to change it is not by freaking out and attempting to cause a riot when given a jaywalking ticket.
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 It is one example among many. The criminal standards are derived from the same powers. The point is that in some instances trials may only proceed with the consent of the defendant, and that is established in case law as well as derived from at least as far back as the declaration of independence. I'm not a lawyer, and I've been drinking whiskey through the last several posts. What I wanted to express is that part of the game the government plays is to fine you small amounts and hit you with court fees for something that is too scary and complicated for most people to address as a means of profiting from you.
The Dean Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Jim, you seem to have this image of me as some kind of rebellions communist/hippie who is doing this for spite. I always thought Jim was a right-wing gun nut who probably belongs to a militia.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 I always thought Jim was a right-wing gun nut who probably belongs to a militia. Keen observation. I guess anyone who lives with his mom in Florida and knows every bar in a 500 mile radius is sharper then me. Keep your thoughts to yourself till you can prove them.
Hossage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 I dont mind right wing gun nuts, especially if they are in militias.
The Dean Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Keen observation. I guess anyone who lives with his mom in Florida and knows every bar in a 500 mile radius is sharper then me. Keep your thoughts to yourself till you can prove them. Did I hit a little too close to home Jim? Are the authorities monitoring The Wall? I was actually just having some fun, but I think I may be on to something now.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 19, 2010 Posted June 19, 2010 Did I hit a little too close to home Jim? Are the authorities monitoring The Wall? I was actually just having some fun, but I think I may be on to something now. I think it was more me on you that hit a nerve mommy boy. I could care less if every cop in the country looks at my guns. They are all legal, but of course a mahogany ridge drunk like you would not know better. Stick with your area of expertise-reefer and booze.
The Dean Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 I think it was more me that hit a nerve,mommas boy. Not at all. I have no issue admitting I care for my old, and mentally failing, mother. It's a good son's job. I'd sure have a hell of a lot more fun if I didn't have to do it...but I couldn't live with myself if I didn't step up and do the right thing. Momma's Boy? If that's what you want to call me, I have no problem with that at all.
Hossage Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 It seems odd that someone with an avatar of a woman holding an ar-15 objects to being called a gun nut in a somewhat fecetious manner.
BB27 Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 It seems odd that someone with an avatar of a woman holding an ar-15 objects to being called a gun nut in a somewhat fecetious manner. I think it's an M4.
Hossage Posted June 20, 2010 Posted June 20, 2010 I think it's an M4. Clearly it is an m4. same thing.
DrDawkinstein Posted June 20, 2010 Author Posted June 20, 2010 Police have no legal standing to arrest you for speeding or jaywalking. You jaywalk, you get a ticket. You resist or push a cop, you go to jail. This started out as a jaywalking issue, that's not why the were arrested. thats what this situation comes down to. the cop merely waved over a group of people to write them tickets. 3 out of the 4 complied, got their tickets and were free to go about the rest of their day. They deserved the ~$50 fine for breaking traffic rules and disrupting traffic. The 4th girl is the one we see in the video. She decided to walk away, and then resist, so she gets arrested. I'm all for cops staying out of people's business, but if you break a law and then proceed to go on the offensive with the cop, you deserve anything and everything coming to you. there have been HUNDREDS of stupid pranks/stunts/whatever that my friends and i could have been arrested for over the course of our 20s. we had cops show up on a number of different "good ideas gone wrong" that were all way worse than jaywalking. but i never once ended up in the situation as this girl did, because once you're busted the only words coming out of your mouth should be "yes sir, we're stupid sir, here's my ID sir, we're sorry sir". follow those simple rules, and dont make it harder for cops than they already have it, and you be AMAZED at what you can get away with. on the other hand, fight back, talk back, and act like it's the cop who is the jerk and end up in jail like you deserve.
Recommended Posts