It’s a matter of education.
No one can transform nature into the criminal realm.
Without a valid cause of action there’s no corpus delicti. If there’s no corpus delicti, a case has no standing. Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff (often the entire state of California!) 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 beside the point.
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 persecutor, “Did you file a valid cause of action against me?” Of course the persecutor has 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, ”How many elements are required to file a valid claim of action?” Any argument by the persecutor as to why that is not germane to the case is flatly wrong, because these elements are central to the case. He’s going to have to say three. Then I’d ask, “What are these three elements?” By answering, the persecutor 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 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 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 questions 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 right.
So, say, if you were growing a backyard full of marijuana, have you violated anyone’s legal rights? No. 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 your rights will no doubt prompt intervention and threats from the pretend judge. If this happens then I’d have a few questions for the banker/judge. Of course all the 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 she or he was trying to intervene against my questions so that I wouldn’t get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest because there would be an inherent interest against me. Then I’d ask the judge who is it that she or he represents? And ask if it isn’t a conflict of interest to have a judge, who represents the State, -who is the pretend plaintiff against me, intervening with my asking the plaintiff questions regarding my rights?
four twenty 2014 Eureka, in the Republic state, California