Notice of No Legal Standing By Offering Party(ies)



Download 41.87 Kb.
Date24.06.2021
Size41.87 Kb.
#146345

Point 018(a). Affiant has no record or evidence that Libellee(s) has/have any "standing" in law to bring charges, or otherwise, to cause any investigation, harassment, meddling, nuisance action, or any other device against Affiant.
ADMIT - Libellee(s) admit to the guilt and truth of bringing forth actions, and, or, procedures against Affiant unlawfully, to Affiant's pain and injury.

NOTICE of No Legal Standing By Offering Party(ies)



"Standing" is legally defined as: "The position of a person in relation to his capacity to act in a particular instance..." 19 Am J2d Corp Section 559, Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1209. The Supreme Court has written, "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigent is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues". Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
If a plaintiff lacks standing, then the courts, all courts, are legally and constitutionally incapable of proceeding because: "courts only adjudicate justiciable controveries". United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 337 US 426, 430. Notice the litigents in this last case if somehow you think "governments" are "exempt" from "standing" requirements.
The Supreme Court said, "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 wrongful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984).
This, of course, references Article III Section 2 of the "United States Constitution" which requires a plaintiff to present a case before a court may proceed: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases..."; "The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government. The Article III doctrine that requires a litigant to have "standing" to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines." Allen v. Wright, page 750.
More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally recognized right, as proven in the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." This means, everything governments do must be to protect and maintain individual rights, as per Supreme Court, "the duty of this court, as of every judicial tribune, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted." Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 US 405.
Standing consists of two ablolutely essential elements: 1) violation of a legal right, and 2) personal injury. Neither one without the other is sufficient, both are required.
So, who is injured if I don't wear a seatbelt? Who has a legal right to tell me I must wear a seatbelt? It is not sufficient to state on a ticket, "the defendant violated the law".
And, how can a "willful failure to file" violate either of the two essential elements? If an indictment is issued, will it have the allegations against me on it? That's a fatal mistake concerning validity. And, any allegations must be based upon facts brought forward by testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge [Rule 602, Federal Rules of Evidence].
A typical response from "government" collectors in the nature of pirates is, "the constitution gives me the right to do this, demand this, take this, or charge you fines, fees, and penalties". Then, I am reminded that if you bring up the "constitution" in court as any point of defense, "they" will quickly remind you that "you have no part in it, bring it up again and I'll get you for contempt of court". You know, they're right, "their" own president plainly stated (about the constitution) "it's just a goddamned piece of paper". They say that I am not a party to it (the constitution). Maybe that's the reason I have never sworn allegiance to it, and, maybe that's the reason I require the courts (or, any/all employed in the "public trust") to provide me with their sworn Oath to uphold my Rights enumerated under the Constitution.
Trinity Medical Center v. North Dakota Board of Nursing, 399 N.W. 2d, 835, "To have standing to bring action, plaintiff must have suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from putatively illegal action, asserted harm must not be specialized grievances shared by all or large classes of citizens."
Fernandez v. Takata Seat Belts, inc, 108 P3d 917, "To gain standing to bring an action, a plaintiff must allege a distinct and palpable injury."
Failure to establish injury leaves the Court without a means to effectuate a remedy and certainly without a basis to allow Defendants to lose their property interest by means of foreclosure. See DeCastro v. Wellston City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 94 Ohio St. 3d 197;761 N.E.2d 612 (2002), (finding that a breach of contract claim without allegation and evidence of actual damage does not provide a means for judicial relief and wastes the Defendant’s and Court’s time and resources).
Loss and injury are the two elements which must exist in combination on essentials of a cause of action. 1 Am J2d, Actions. Sec.70

With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face.. Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512



As the Court knows, damages must be proven by evidence entered on the record. Proof of, or assessment of, damages upon petition claiming damages, it is error to pronounce judgment without hearing proof or assessing damages. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 31 Okla. 300, 121 P. 654, Ann.Cas.1913E, 329 (1912); City of Guthrie v. T. W. Harvey Lumber Co., 5 Okla. 774, 50 P. 84 (1897).

Download 41.87 Kb.

Share with your friends:



The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message
    Main page
supreme court
most important