Written by Marc Stevens
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." (Emphasis mine)
This of course is repeated in "state" constitutions such as Arizona: "governments ... are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Arizona constitution article II § 2. This is why standing and jurisdiction must always involve a plaintiff's rights.
However, statists, especially attorneys, are not interested in the plain truth. That is why they claim everything I write is taken out of context. An example is standing. This incredibly simple issue is intentionally complicated by attorneys whose money is made arguing. Attorneys will claim because I provide quotes and citations from civil cases, that standing and jurisdiction only applies to civil cases, not criminal cases. One attorney in Arizona, Paula Burgess, acting as a judge, told me with a straight face article II § 2 did not apply to criminal cases. In Ms. Burgess's opinion the criminal court system was either not created by the Arizona constitution or is not a part of the government. It's absurd to claim standing and jurisdiction requirements do not apply in criminal cases.
It's simple logic and common sense, juris doctorate not required:
(1) the government was established/instituted for one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(2) the courts being a part of the government have the same singular purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(3) the courts' jurisdiction has one purpose i.e., to secure/protect rights;
(4) Standing to invoke a court's jurisdiction requires the allegation a right is being violated.
Standing applies in criminal cases. What attorneys probably don't like is it doesn't require a one-hundred thousand dollar education to know and understand it; all it requires is to know what the purpose of government is supposed to be. Maybe one of the reasons attorneys don't like this is that it's a threat to their monopoly.
Let's examine the heinous crime called the "unauthorized practice of law", attorneys LOVE this. Their passionate enforcement is evidence enough (try to assist a friend in court and watch the attorneys come alive). In California it is "punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1000), or by both..." California Business and Professions Code § 6126(a).
Government has one purpose "governments ... are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” Arizona constitution article II § 2. Whose rights am I accused of violating if I am accused of the "unauthorized practice of law" crime? If you have trouble identifying whose rights to life, liberty or property are violated, then don't despair because it violates no one's rights. It's the same if I am growing marijuana on my property, it violates no one's rights and injures no one. I wonder how many attorneys would be out of work if the "drug war" ended tomorrow? Looks like a motive to me.
Remember, attorneys are part of the system, their allegiance is to that system because that system is where and how they get such high profits. Anything that would take away from their profits will be attacked. Therefore, anything that would take business away from the courts will be opposed by this aggression-drunk cult.
As designed by this cult, there will always be conflicting "precedents" and there are probably "opinions" out there that may appear to conflict, or actually conflict with, the cases I provide below. Do not let that discourage you, remember the cases I have cited are consistent with constitutions, enabling acts and the Declaration of Independence. When conflicting "opinions" are brought forth, then take that as evidence that attorneys will say anything. It's one more reason not to give any credibility to an attorney.
