Greetings Marc (and AiLl),
Regarding the issue of "standing", something that keeps nagging at me is the aspect of the initial snaffu of this all, that of course being The State. One buys into (agrees to) The State, then don't you buy into seeing things that "are not required" to hold in fact? Its the proverbial "foundation" of "The House"-- where in this case, we're talking The House of "Representation". Key word: "re"+"presenting". I think of the ole Doobie Brothers album title here: "What Were Once Vices, Are Now Habits." (and in The State case, hobbits).
Where then "the body" (the "corpus") is for the typical american? Is it not "The Body politic"? Synonymous with "The State of" and/or "The United States" (or The Nation etc)? And we hear of "the legislative body"? We are "one" ("Union", Abe). So injure "me", injure U.S. all? "You are either for us or against us"? "See" that? The Corpus re+presented?
And so in that state of mind (again, The State as factual) aren't we simply back to what the terms mean? "They've" already made it "official" (aka "legal") that incorporation "creates" a "person", no? So why not see agreement to the next "obvious" step, any person "has" a body, no? And how & where do you injure such a body? Why,
obviously, the same "place" you see The State?
This "body" part came roaring back to me in reading your very extensive listing of "standing" cases quotes, where so many of them were listed as some "Inc." VS some "person"-- where under the acceptance of illusion (re+presentative), they are either and both "bodies"?
So help me out here as to why "They" (again, those agreeing to that State of mind) can't "see" said "corpus" in all these "cases"?
Add to that, then further, 'con'sidering how "They" define "injury" and "violation of right(s)"? Isn't it pretty clear
[sic]that to State-think, "the people" ARE a "body" and thus can be "injured" and have "Their" rights violated? I say "clear" in light of
We The People having no problem ("argument") with The Body/State being "represented" in case after case? [perhaps recalling that said
Declaration even speaks (?) of "The People" having the right (and/or "patriotic duty" then?) to form the "controlmeant"/government (body?) of their choice? Have most (see by most as "the majority", of course) chosen The State?]
I feel what I'm centrally after here, is not that the original intent of
corpus delecti-- where said body is human, and not politic/visionary/whatever is imagined via agreement ("majority rule") --is an invalid one, but asking whether we are spinning OUR wheels in seeking to argue such logic and issue, particularly in using "legal precedent" aka legal speak, among the obviously political "body" assembled? Its all Their words (terms) and "They" don't exist to start with?!? Perhaps no wonder They offer psychiatric evaluation as valid?! (just kidding)
Most folks that I know get the proverbial deer in the headlights look just in bringing up the likes of "
juris prudence" (ie using those words), much less "corpus delecti" and even "The Code" [its a lot like trying to argue The Bible by using The Bible with most
]. Both cases being centrally of the same nature: the common folk have been led to believe it takes "special" or "chosen" ones to understand such-- as after all, They are "the ministers". ["pay me" on the way out/when the plate is passed...]
The "facts"
They rely on? In any & every case: the fact that people by action and "signs" believe there is The State (Body).
I welcome your perspective, and as always,
my2cents worth~
(which is more than I can say I've
factually spent in $upporting your show-- other than by recommendation/referral)
--eye2i2here
ps: I do understand and agree that any approach that might wake up some of those stepped in State-think is,
can prove valuable; but I don't know that spending precious time going "the legal theory" route, including using "juris prudence", particularly with the like of latin words (corpus/juris), is a wise or most productive one-- with either the man on the street, on the radio or the internet, and perhaps even less so those who's "career$" are locked in it.
pss: part of my support of the futility of this route comes from what is now about a 3rd month, sometimes daily debate with a "typical american" (ie says he hates his loss of freedom and despises State abuse, but that "its" still just the best thing going) regarding whether my dad's business exists. Just as firmly as he sees that business existing (legal and factually) under its name-- and as such being a "body" able to be represented so as to sue in court, etc-- so he sees The State also exists. No matter "the facts". Its a lifetime of belief, after all! And so try to talk "
corpus delecti"? And so isn't 'bout every attorney/IRS agent just such a "typical american"... and for a lifetime?
modification addendum:
pss: not to even get into how
high up this legal ladder we have to climb to find any [The Archist = "higher powers"] who actually know The System is NOT built on said "juris prudence", but rather simply understand its distraction [see study time spent on "standing" and "corpus delecti"?] for those trying to make it do so! Nor the probability when considering human nature, how many below The Wizard of Oz/U.S. higher ups (The Archist!) "need" such woven in as something to quench what would otherwise be a guilty conscience?
Any witnesses show up?