There are only two kinds of charges you
can face in a court case. These are criminal or civil charges. When
faced with civil charges, which includes most traffic and possession
cases, what you need to understand is that there is no real legal
difference between that ticket and a lawsuit. That's what a civil
case means, and the fraud here is that all courts understand that
when a civil controversy arises, only someone with the standing to
sue can file charges against you. I can't sue you because you broke
my neighbor's fence, someone with a personal stake in the matter can
sue, such as my neighbor himself or the company he was renting the
fence from.
This applies to all cases as explained
by these judges:
“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)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html (confirmed)
“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html (confirmed)
“Constitutional limits on standing eliminate claims in which the plaintiff has failed to make out a case or controversy between himself and the defendant, and, in order to satisfy the judicial article of the Constitution, the plaintiff must show that he personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.
Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 S. Ct. 1601 (1979) (Confirmed WestLaw)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html (confirmed)
“the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it.”
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/.../case.html (confirmed)
“Constitutional limits on standing eliminate claims in which the plaintiff has failed to make out a case or controversy between himself and the defendant, and, in order to satisfy the judicial article of the Constitution, the plaintiff must show that he personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.
Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 S. Ct. 1601 (1979) (Confirmed WestLaw)
the point here is not that anyone
should be able to commit crimes whenever they want and get away with
it. The point is that a crime is only committed when someone's
property has been destroyed or harm or injury has been done. This is
the big secret that the courts do not want to get out at all costs,
and this blog will help you break-through the myths that keep the
scam going one by one.
Head over to My next post on Corpus
Delicti & learn why there cannot be a crime unless someone has
been harmed or property damaged.
No comments:
Post a Comment