Legal Standing question in regards to corporate statutes.

This has nothing to do with Obama's eligibility, just the legal maneuver implemented in all of his cases.

The defense has applied and has won every case so far that NO one has legal status to question his eligibility.

This is what I am going to do with any statutory ticket, like speeding, I may receive in the future.

I am not going to plead either guilty or not guilty. I am going to ask the court a couple relevant questions. One, what is their legal standing to even decide my guilt, and two, who is the victim?

ExPostFacto has brought up this question to ask when they ask me if I understand the charges.
No, I do not understand sir, could you explain in common language everything relevant to understanding the charges and the law?

I think if our President has the ability to say no one has standing, what right does any court have the right or standing, to punish me for something where there is no victim.

Thoughts anyone, also any lawyers or LEO's out there, please give me your viewpoints.

Freeman can chime in and give me the breakdown on your techniques for handling such things.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


You may be able to do this. I believe (I haven't looked into it) a person is asked if they understand the charges against them before pleading. A person could answer no they do not understand those charges. In which case the court will explain them in simple terms. I do not know what would happen if the person still stated they didn't understand the charges. I would imagine indefinite detention would be in order, or the person would go to trial without a plea begin entered. I am fairly sure that a person does not need to understand charges against them if everyone else understands those charges. In other words, a person could be tried and punishments levied without them acknowledging the crime in which they committed, so long as the punishment is not death.

I do like the idea of asking a judge about the nature of the crime, just to see if they can answer it.

The thing is these cases are being thrown out not because of questioning authority. They are being dismissed due to lack of merit. If you were to question the authority of the court to decide a civil accusation, you would find that you are subject of the laws of the place where you are at the time.

I have seen many cases where the defendent denys the authority of the governing body (although not the US, Saddam Hussain for instance) however he hung just the same.

The judge would just say guilty and bang the gavel and you would have to pay the fine.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by damwel]

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Yeah, that was one component another brought up (in another thread conversation) about how can we be asked if we understand the charges?

Lawyers go to school for many years and do not know all the ins and outs of the law.

That could be another question to ask. No, I do not understand sir, could you explain in common language everything relevant to understanding the charges and the law?

Added to OP.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by damwel


Like I said, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE CASES.

Except for the FINDINGS of the court.

AND they all found LACK OF STANDING.

So enough said about that.

Ok, if you don't understand what you are charged with, you get a lawyer (payed with tax money) who will do his best to explain it to you.
If he fails as well, he wil call in the psychologists and psychatrists to find out if you really don't understand, or are faking.
If they can't determine that you are faking your attourney will try an insanity defence.
Should that be successull you will go into treatment, and once "cured" ... get charged with the offence.

The no standing thing has nothing to do with that.
No, you can't impeach the president, just because you woke up this morning feeling a little cranky.
You can write a letter to your congressman and say "I felt cranky this morning. You know what would make me feel better? Impeach the president!" And he can try to get a house majority to impeach the President.
"I felt cranky this morning" propably won't motivate him much though, so you might want to get something better.
It's called representative democracy. In US-english the term "Republic" is often used for it.

reply to post by debunky

Please people, read the OP.

This has nothing to do with Obama's eligibility, just the legal maneuver implemented in all of his cases.

Please do not try to sidetrack my thread.

It has to do with the legal technique used.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OBAMA!

Have you read any of the comments or even understood anything I asked?

Do you understand all the laws you are possibly guilty of and all the ramifications to doing ANYTHING in court?

When you get a lawyer, you have to sign a sheet stating you are PLACING YOURSELF IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.

Please do not come here and spout what you have learned about our court system, by what you have seen on LAW & ORDER!

Do you understand the charges placed against you today?

Basically, the question of standing as relates to civil procedures has been raised as a potential defense here - am I getting the question correct?

"Standing" has always seemed to me to be the ultimate judicial "cop out" for the courts system including SCOTUS. Whenever a case is "too hot to handle", the procedural issue is typically "standing" - lack of merit gets more "up front" consideration. Judges at all levels are primarily concerned with clearing their dockets. Landmark cases that on their face have the potential to turn the country or the legal system upside down are going to be avoided.

Or not - depending upon the political climate at the time and the issue at hand (Terri Schaivo). I don't have any quotable references so sorry for the subjective rant.

gj

reply to post by ganjoa


Yeah, I am just thinking that if it can be used in civil cases, why not normal non criminal proceedings.

Just something I was hoping a lawyer or someone versed in law could go over.