--Famspear
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
I asked who not what. Humor me please.Famspear wrote:You know what a city, state or nation is. I don't need to explain the basic concepts to you.Spideynw wrote:Then why is anyone represented in tax cases? Why does the prosecutor represent the "state/city/nation"? Who is the state/city/nation?
I am using it in the strict sense. Maybe standing would be a better term for you?No. No one else is confused. Yes, the members of Congress have a "right" (in the broad, inartful sense in which you are using the term) to make rules for you and your property. And when you break "their" rules, you are in a sense "breaching their right to rule over you" -- in the sense in which YOU are using the term "right."So, according to you, they have a right to make rules for me and my property. But when I break their rules, I am not breaching their right to rule over me? Anyone else confused?
I would say a rights violation is suffering some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury. It is really a simple concept. Such as murder. My right to life was violated. Theft, my right to my property was violated. Do you think supreme court decisions apply to federal cases? If so, then could you please explain who has suffered some direct or substantial injury by me not paying taxes?Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. (bold added)
You seem to be having the difficulty of making something out of nothing.You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept of what some legal scholars refer to as the fallacy of whole word equivocation.
Spideynw wrote:I asked who not what. Humor me please.Famspear wrote:You know what a city, state or nation is. I don't need to explain the basic concepts to you.Spideynw wrote:Then why is anyone represented in tax cases? Why does the prosecutor represent the "state/city/nation"? Who is the state/city/nation?
I am using it in the strict sense. Maybe standing would be a better term for you?No. No one else is confused. Yes, the members of Congress have a "right" (in the broad, inartful sense in which you are using the term) to make rules for you and your property. And when you break "their" rules, you are in a sense "breaching their right to rule over you" -- in the sense in which YOU are using the term "right."So, according to you, they have a right to make rules for me and my property. But when I break their rules, I am not breaching their right to rule over me? Anyone else confused?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standingI would say a rights violation is suffering some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury. It is really a simple concept. Such as murder. My right to life was violated. Theft, my right to my property was violated. Do you think supreme court decisions apply to federal cases? If so, then could you please explain who has suffered some direct or substantial injury by me not paying taxes?Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. (bold added)
You seem to be having the difficulty of making something out of nothing.You seem to be having some difficulty with the concept of what some legal scholars refer to as the fallacy of whole word equivocation.
No.Spideynw wrote:I asked who [is the state/city/nation] not what. Humor me please.
No. You are using the term "right" in a broad and somewhat imprecise sense. I am using the term "right" in a more narrow, or strict sense.I am using it [the term "right"] in the strict sense. Maybe standing would be a better term for you?
No. I do not "seem" to be having "the difficulty of making something out of nothing."You seem to be having the difficulty of making something out of nothing.
I'll defer to those here with criminal law experience (which I don't have) if I'm wrong or imprecise, but I would say that yes, in a criminal case, the state has the legal authority to prosecute someone for an alleged violation of a criminal statute, and that a defendant cannot defeat that authority by arguing that the state somehow has no "standing" to prosecute violations of its own laws.bmielke wrote:To the lawyers out there, I thought standing was only an issue in Civil Court. In criminal court the state always has standing to bring a case.
Exactly right. You will never find a criminal case discussing the doctrine of standing.I'll defer to those here with criminal law experience (which I don't have) if I'm wrong or imprecise, but I would say that yes, in a criminal case, the state has the legal authority to prosecute someone for an alleged violation of a criminal statute, and that a defendant cannot defeat that authority by arguing that the state somehow has no "standing" to prosecute violations of its own laws.
Correct. On rare occasions in criminal cases - especially in federal courts - jurisdiction is an issue. Standing is not.bmielke wrote:To the lawyers out there, I thought standing was only an issue in Civil Court. In criminal court the state always has standing to bring a case.
That's really interesting "logic".Spideynw wrote:My point still stands. If the case was thrown out because of lack of jurisdiction, then all parking ticket cases would get thrown out. Same if it was thrown out because of lack of standing.
Okay, nitwit, I will tell you. Roads don't build themselves. Airports don't rise out of the ground magically. Soldiers in the army working for our government don't do it for nothing. All of that has to be paid for. In our country an elaborate tax scheme exist to fund such activities. Part of that scheme requires you and me to pay a share. When you don't pay your part - others have to pay more or we all have to do without services. So everyone in the country suffers and is directly injured because you are a nitwit.I would say a rights violation is suffering some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury. It is really a simple concept. Such as murder. My right to life was violated. Theft, my right to my property was violated. Do you think supreme court decisions apply to federal cases? If so, then could you please explain who has suffered some direct or substantial injury by me not paying taxes?
Spideynw wrote:Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?
Mine.Spideynw wrote:Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?
Well, then you haven't been punished.Spideynw wrote:Then I don't see how I can be punished.Famspear wrote:I'm not sure why you're asking that question, but here's my answer.Spideynw wrote:Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?
With respect to federal income taxes, you're not violating anyone else's "rights" in a strict legal sense by not paying taxes.
Yes, and that is why you don't need to obey them.Spideynw wrote:Isn't a statute a rule made by some strangers I don't know claiming to have a right to rule over me?
People like Spideynw give names a bad name.grixit wrote:People like Spideynw give sophistry a bad name.
Then you're simply a deliberately ignorant troll.Spideynw wrote:I don't know.Judge Roy Bean wrote:Why is a witness required when the question is whether or not the "client" is a taxpayer? That is a matter of law.Spideynw wrote:So I have listened to the full audio. He asks the attorney if she has a witness with first hand knowledge that his client is a tax-payer. ...
That would include the judge and jury?iplawyer wrote: Part of that scheme requires you and me to pay a share. When you don't pay your part - others have to pay more or we all have to do without services. So everyone in the country suffers and is directly injured because you are a nitwit.
So in federal tax court, when the plaintiff is the United States of America, the United States of America is all federal employees?CaptainKickback wrote:People collecting Social Security (retirement or disability). Those who use roads, highways and freeways. The Army Corps of Engineers and the beneficiaries of all their work. Retired military personnel. Air traffic controllers. Forestry Service - you know, the folks who run the National Parks that lots of us like to visit.
You refuse to explain who the complaining party is? Why? What are you scared of?Famspear wrote:No.Spideynw wrote:I asked who [is the state/city/nation] not what. Humor me please.
So in federal tax court, when the United States of America is the plaintiff, you are the United States of America?LPC wrote:Mine.Spideynw wrote:Whose rights do I violate by not paying taxes?