-6

I have a speeding ticket court date coming up soon in NY and I don't know if there will be a prosecutor or a plaintiff or just the police officer against me.

One of my main arguments will be that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the accuser lacks standing under grounds of a not asserting a concrete injury-in-fact.

I could only find challenge to standing in civil cases. According to my research state courts must follow federal court decisions in federal matters. Being standing and injury-in-fact assertion a federal mandate I wish to know if there is any criminal case where the prosecutor had to establish standing?

From Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins: “A bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm,” are insufficient to demonstrate standing.

3
  • For most of the life of the U.S. Constitution, there has been no doubt that both the courts at the federal level and those at the state level each have power to interpret what that Constitution means. There is, though, only one court – the U.S. Supreme Court – that has the final say on constitutional interpretation. And, when it makes such a decision, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes clear that the result is “the supreme law of the land” and no contrary state law can stand.
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 4:29
  • [link]blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/01/…
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 4:30
  • 5
    The federal Supreme Court has the final say on the federal constitution. So what? Whether state courts have the power to hear a case depends on state law (not federal, outside of special cases), and the federal courts must defer to state courts on matters of state law.
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 5:32

7 Answers 7

-2

Is this written anywhere in a constitution, criminal case, or statute?

"...a state doesn't need to give its judges life tenure. State legislatures need not be bicameral. State felony cases don't require a grand jury. State governments aren't restricted to Article I's enumerated powers."

Is this theory supported by any facts?

I don't believe so. What it does is evade the subject matter at hand. Do states meet the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing? By their own admissions, the detractors of this post agree that the state has no constitutional standing. It doesn't take a PHD or JD to comprehend that constitutions were formed to restrict governments and guarantee the individual rights of the People (Human Beings and not fictions). The Common Law was and is applicable to all. It is the premise upon which all English speaking governments are constructed. But is it that the attorneys on this post, who tout the unconstitutional statutory jurisdiction of state courts, think to change the Laws and the Times? No body is guaranteed "statutory rights." No state constitution guarantees "statutory rights." The Federal Constitution does not guarantee "statutory rights." People may consent to or deny, at any time, a statutory right. (In truth, a statutory right is not a right but a privilege that can be denied by the government that created it or ignored by the Sovereign People (Yic Wo v. Hopkins; Perry v. United States).

Nevertheless, a state does not "need" to give its judges life tenure, because that is what makes the Federal Judicial Power supreme over state judicial power.

State legislatures are bicameral, the point is lost.

State felony cases better be in compliance with the Federal Constitution which states no felony or other infamous crime shall be prosecuted without indictment "OR" presentment of a grand jury. Such is made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment and, of course, Article VI Clause 2. If anyone can name one state of the union that doesn't follow this rule of Law, please let me know forthwith...

Finally, state legislatures ARE INDEED restricted by the Laws of the United States which are supreme over them. Thus, all of your interstate compact laws are in direct compliance to the delegated power of Congress (which would involve Commerce, by the way). One's contention concerning the applicability of any part of the Federal Constitution to the states is muffed by its Article VI Clauses 2 and 3 provisions. If you are a state officer you have taken at least two oaths of office; one federal and the other state. Now which one takes precedence over the other?

Cease with such nonsense.

8
  • 1
    FYI, Nebraska's legislature is unicameral. 27 states do not require an indictment for felonies; of those, two don't even have indictments (all charges are brought by information). The Fifth Amendment does not directly apply to the states. The 14th does, but federal courts have held that indictment by grand jury is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty and thus not required at the state level.
    – cpast
    Jul 2, 2017 at 15:36
  • 2
    Troy: Stop posting multiple answers to the same question. Please take the tour and spend some time familiarizing yourself with the Stack Exchange model.
    – feetwet
    Jul 2, 2017 at 16:09
  • The answers are not to the same question, and I'm sure you know that. They are in response to other answers regarding my answer. Spin it any way you like. You've blocked questions I have posed, not answers. And, I simply explain the reasoning behind those questions, which are formulated by reading the many responses to the initial question. Stop harassing me!!! Let the attorneys-at-statutes answer the questions posed to them, and not conveniently sidestep the ones they cannot pointedly respond to... Jul 11, 2017 at 0:28
  • cpast, you have chosen one state out of how many that has a unicameral legislature? Smh. Regardless, sir, every state in this Union of states (including New York) has relied on United States Supreme Court decisions, as they are controlling on YOU state government officers. Are you not an attorney under Oath to the Constitution for the United States, and the constitution for the state of New York. You should be very careful, in regards to your oaths? Your "rant" still doesn't defeat the fact that states have no standing to sue out a bill (or information) criminally. Where are your facts? Jul 11, 2017 at 0:34
  • Here is a New York state case for you to ponder, as to your standing claims. Do note the language: St. Clair v. Yonkers Raceway, Inc. 13 N.Y.2d 72, 73, 192 N.E.2d 15, 15-16, 242 N.Y.S.2d 43, 44 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 970 (1964). ("We have always held that the constitutionality of a State statute may be tested only by one personally aggrieved thereby . . . an unaggrieved citizen-taxpayer, such as appellant, lacks standing to challenge a statute's constitutional validity.") Cited in ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW VOLUME 47, MARCH 1973 NUMBER 3 STANDING TO SUE IN NEW YORK Jul 11, 2017 at 0:43
11

No. The true accuser is the state and the state always has standing to enforce its laws. This is an injury in fact. The judge would laugh at you and probably then double the fine for your insolence. This defense would be considered frivolous.

8
  • 1
    injury-in-fact requirement requires a plaintiff to show that he or she suffered “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, supra, at 560. Pp. 7–11. . And also in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s bare allegation that the defendant violated a federal statute was not sufficient to show standing to file a lawsuit. Would you kindly and humbly explain why these rulings do not apply.
    – olhodolago
    Feb 8, 2017 at 18:26
  • 9
    A district attorney in the state court system has standing to enforce any state crime arising in his district. A federal U.S. Attorney has standing to enforce any federal crime in his district. A DA in the state court system lacks standing to enforce a federal crime, and a U.S. attorney lacks standing to enforce a state crime. But, the caption in every criminal case is People v. [Defendant] and the People have standing to enforce their criminal laws. The cop or DA is just an agent of the People which is a name for the state which has a legally protected interest in having its laws enforced.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 8, 2017 at 19:41
  • 3
    Civil standing rules do not apply in criminal or quasi-criminal cases like traffic violation cases. A plaintiff in a civil case and a prosecutor in a criminal one are two different things.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 8, 2017 at 19:42
  • 7
    A law prohibits people from speeding. The right to enforce all criminal laws is vested in the state. The state, by definition, has a legally protected right to punish people who violate the criminal and quasi-criminal laws. The harm suffered by the state is that people are speeding and hence not obeying the law. This is a legally recognized form of harm to the state. No other injury is required. A crime can be enforced even if it is loosely called "victimless". it doesn't have to be logical. It is just the way the criminal law works. Standing is never an issue in criminal cases.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 8, 2017 at 23:55
  • 8
    The judge isn't denying the constitution just because you are too stupid to understand it.
    – ohwilleke
    Feb 9, 2017 at 19:50
6

Ohwilleke's answer covers why the state would have standing. However, your question is also wrong to assume that standing and injury-in-fact is a federal mandate; federal rules about standing are irrelevant in state court. Federal standing doctrine is conceptually fairly simple: the federal courts only have judicial power because Article III of the federal constitution gives them judicial power, and Article III only says the judicial power extends to various kinds of case or controversy. If something isn't a case or controversy, the federal constitution doesn't give the federal courts any power to decide it. The standing doctrine is how the federal courts have defined "case" and "controversy" as those terms appear in the federal constitution. Standing is a part of the structure of the federal government (if you don't have standing, it means you have to take up your concern with one of the other two branches).

While state courts are bound by US Supreme Court precedent (not just any federal court, only the Supreme Court) on matters of federal law, that's irrelevant here. New York state courts do not get their authority to decide cases from Article III. They get it from New York state law. On issues of state law, state courts don't have to defer to federal courts (it's actually the other way around). States don't have to structure their governments exactly like the federal government.


Since you're still not getting it, I'm going to run through the start of Article III. Before I start, you need to understand what the Constitution is. It's not just "the supreme Law of the Land." It is primarily a document to establish how the 13 original states would join together in a federation. Particularly before amendments were added, most of the document establishes the structure of the new central government. Article III wasn't written to say "here's how courts work;" New York and Maryland and all the other states already had perfectly good court systems laid out in their state constitutions that satisfied their own citizens. Article III was written to set up a federal court system under the authority of the central government, and it talks about how that federal court system works. Also, know that when the Constitution says "United States" it's generally talking about the federal government (e.g. in Article VI when it says the laws of the United States are supreme over anything in the laws of any state).

Article III begins:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

There are two kinds of court that exercise the judicial power of the United States: a Supreme Court and inferior courts that are established by Congress. New York state courts certainly aren't the Supreme Court it's talking about, nor are they ordained and established by Congress. New York state courts do not exercise the judicial power of the United States. (That doesn't mean they can't hear a case if it falls within the federal judicial power, but they can only hear it if they have some other source of authority to do so). Since state courts aren't the supreme or inferior courts this section is talking about, the rest of the section doesn't apply. That's why only one state has judges serve during good behavior; the remaining 49 have either fixed terms or a maximum age.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

This is the part of Article III giving rise to the federal standing requirements. But when it says "judicial power," it's referring to the power from section 1: the judicial power of the United States. This is not only the most natural reading, it's the only one that doesn't lead to an absurd result: if it defined the state judicial power as well, then no court would have jurisdiction over a lawsuit between two residents of the same state under state law. Want a divorce? Too bad: that doesn't arise under the laws of the United States, you and your spouse are residents of the same state, so Article III's judicial power does not extend to your divorce case. If you instead read "laws of the United States" as including state law, you've just dramatically expanded the power of the federal courts. The list was tailored to cover situations where a state court should not have the final say.

So this section refers to the judicial power of the United States. Who exercises that? The federal courts. Who does not exercise that? State courts. Where do state courts get their power? State law. Who gets to decide what state law means? State courts.

When SCOTUS lays out standing requirements, it's deciding what is and isn't on this list of cases. If something isn't on the list, nothing gives federal courts the power to decide it. But that doesn't mean it isn't on the list of things state courts get to decide. Just because something isn't within the judicial power of the United States, doesn't mean it's not within the judicial power of New York, which is what New York state courts exercise.

8
  • does "...because federal rules of standing are irrelevant in state court" hold water over preemption?
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 4:09
  • 2
    Federal standing is about the structure of the federal government and the powers granted to federal courts. It has nothing whatsoever to do with state courts. Trying to argue lack of federal standing in state court is like trying to argue that a state law is invalid because it doesn't fall under one of the enumerated powers in Article I of the federal constitution: no one cares because that isn't where the state gets its authority from. There is no "preemption;" Article III gives no judicial authority to state courts, so it doesn't matter what does and doesn't fall under it.
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 5:28
  • 2
    States don't need to have a standing rule. Even if they do have one, they give the state government standing to prosecute the violation of state law. Federal court cases are irrelevant, because state courts do not defer to federal courts on matters of state law (if a state has a standing doctrine, it's entirely a matter of state law).
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 18:13
  • 1
    @ohwilleke Is my new description of your answer better?
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 19:58
  • 3
    @olhodolago ...the state court decision applies in state court, and the federal court decision is completely ignored. Pretty simple: when there is no conflict between laws (like when federal law says XYZ is a requirement to sue in federal court and state law says it is not a requirement to sue in state court), then both apply. Since you're not in federal court, it is irrelevant what the requirements are to sue in federal court.
    – cpast
    Feb 10, 2017 at 5:10
3
  1. Article III only describes the federal judiciary. It begins, "The judicial Power of the United States...". Any standing analysis dependent on the text of Article III is restricted in scope to the federal judiciary.

  2. Criminal prosecution is within the jurisdiction of federal courts:

    Although pro se defendant has latched on to the notion that to have standing in an Article III civil controversy, the party bring the action must have a concrete stake in the litigation and have suffered an injury-in-fact, he fails to appreciate the distinctions to be drawn between a criminal case and a civil controversy. And while the broad language appearing in some of the more recent Supreme Court opinions expounding on the limitations of Article III standing would appear at first brush to be irreconcilable with the traditional mechanics employed in conducting criminal prosecutions, dogmatically drawing a corollary conclusion that federal criminal prosecution is outside the jurisdictional reach of Article III is tantamount to the "absurd." U.S. v. Patrick David Ellis, No. 2:06cr390, (W.D. Pa, 2007)

    The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, gave federal district courts jurisdiction over federal crimes. If this was counter to the intentions of the founders, somebody would have said something. The Constitution had become effective just six months prior. That concurrent legislative action, and uninterrupted subsequent history of allowing prosecutions in the federal courts clearly establishes federal jurisdiction over federal prosecutions.

  3. New York's Constitution establishes a "city-wide court of criminal jurisdiction" for the city of New York, and county courts with jurisdiction over "all crimes and other violations of law", among others (family courts, appeals courts, state supreme court).

In summary, Article III doesn't apply to state courts so is irrelevant in this case. Even if it applied, prosecutions are within the jurisdiction of Article III courts. New York's Constitution establishes several courts with jurisdiction over "all crimes and other violations of law."

3
  • If Article III applies it is relevant.
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 13:14
  • It is the Supreme Law of the Land
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 16:20
  • Thank you for withdrawing your comment saying Article III does not apply. If you agree it does please up my question and answer.
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 20:44
-4

Article III's case and controversy clause applies to exercise of judicial power. Therefore it applies to supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts. The reason that historically there is a lack of challenging the state's standing and stating a harm or legal wrong in criminal cases may be due to the assumption that laws are made to protect against harm and legal wrongs therefore the violation of a statute would constitute a harm. But when statutes are created with the intention to generate revenue they are unconstitutional.

6
  • 1
    State courts are not what Article III means by "inferior courts." Article III is about the federal courts. When it says "inferior courts," it means inferior federal courts.
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 5:33
  • @cpast Article VI defines supremacy, and all courts must be in accordance with the supreme court of the land which is decided by supreme court. Harm is interpreted by supreme Court as one requirement for standing. If a state statute is in conflict with that federal judgement preempts it.
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 13:00
  • 1
    But article III standing only applies to federal courts. State laws about state court jurisdiction can't possibly be in conflict with it.
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 13:45
  • @cpast The state law "Speeding" is not in conflict with standing rule... a lack of injury-in-fact standing requirement is.
    – olhodolago
    Feb 9, 2017 at 16:16
  • Why do you think New York state law requires the government to have an injury-in-fact to bring a case for violation of the state vehicle code? Remember: nothing in the federal constitution is relevant to that issue.
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 18:32
-4

Article III is the limitation of judicial power and is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore applies to all courts.

1
  • 2
    Much of it doesn't. For instance, a state doesn't need to give its judges life tenure. State legislatures need not be bicameral. State felony cases don't require a grand jury. State governments aren't restricted to Article I's enumerated powers.
    – cpast
    Feb 9, 2017 at 18:17
-5

It was asked if a prosecutor has standing to sue in a criminal case (or words to that affect), and the answer is a resounding NO! First, I have assessed most of the arguments presented on this subject, and, in truth, they are just theories, and not Law. The truth is, the so-called criminal law is a special creature of the legislatures. This mysteriously took place back in the early history of this country. Suffice it to say that all criminal courts are "legislative courts" and not "constitutional courts." (See the Canter Case.) Thus, they have what is known as "special limited jurisdiction," and not "general jurisdiction." You need only seek the history of United States Supreme Court cases, which relate to all state court cases, on the subject of criminal law. There is a very good reason why attorneys-at-statutes do not like to discuss the Common Law (Supposing it is judge-made law when it is not. More theorizing of old opinions.) Cases such as Britton v. United States, 108 U.S. 199, 206, citing Hudson v. United States, 11 U.S. 32 (1816), expressly states that, "There can be no common law offenses against the United States or a state." Hudson makes clear that this includes states as well as the federal government. Inter alia, when speaking in reference to a criminal statute the Hudson court explains:

"The provision of the statute, that there must be an act done [emphasis added] to effect its object...merely affords a locus poenitentiae, so that before the act done, either by one or all of the parties, may be abandoned [by them], thus avoiding the penalty proscribed by the statute." (Britton, id., at 205). I emphasize, an act MUST be done, which is particularized, as opposed to abstract.

Now some may argue that the federal court jurisdiction differs from state court jurisdictions, but of course that is not the law of the land (Art. VI Cl. 2); for all government officials are bound by the Federal Constitution (Id., Cl. 3). Interestingly, Article VI Clause 2 specifically provides that EVERY STATE COURT JUDGE, shall be bound by the Federal Constitution, as the supreme Law of the Land, and anything in the Constitution or Laws of a state to the contrary notwithstanding. States tried to do their own thing in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, and were shot down! In the case of Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1, 5 L.Ed. 19, the Supreme Court underlined the point: "Every state law must conform in the first [instance] to the Constitution [for the] United States, and then to the subordinate constitution of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void." Constitutional Law also states that: "No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the United States Constitution." 16 Am.Jur.2d, Const. Law, Sec. 70. (See also 16 Am.Jur.2d Sec. 178.) Now unless the legal society wants to admit that all of its criminal laws are no laws at all (and it would seem so, as currently applied), states must conform to the Federal Constitutions. PERIOD!

The significance of the Common Law, as opposed to so-called "statute law" is that it deals with the substance of a case and is not so much concerned with the form "OF" Law. This is the significance of constitutional law. Article III deals with Judicial Power, as does state court constitutions, which MUST comply with it. There are many cases articulating the principle that the plaintiff must have "an injury in fact." To say that a plaintiff does not have such an injury, and doesn't have to have one, is to say that you are not dealing with reality, but a fiction. However, "The Constitution is not to be satisfied with a fiction." (Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 390)(1912). Interestingly, a state has been defined as a "feigned and artificial person" (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 455)(1793); an "artificial entity" (Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 666)(1979); an "abstract thing" (Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 347)(1878); an "intangible thing" (Ex parte Young, 108 U.S. 123, 175)(1908); and even a "corporation" (Chisholm, id., at 447-448). It can never appear in any kind of court (Ex parte Young, id., at 175). Now, it cannot be denied that the states are fictitious. It is fact and Law. But the question remains, does a state have constitutional standing to bring a criminal case against one of its People? (A more proper wording of the subject matter, I think.) Well, by the many decisions of the Supreme Court, with no state court deciding to the contrary, no state government can meet the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing to sue. (Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99; Allen v. Wright, 486 U.S. 737, 750-753; Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 502 U.S. 555, 560-562)... They just ignore it and induce by coercive tactics the continuation of a seemingly unexplained and unconstitutional process to the merits of the case. So then, the answer, to the question posed, in reality, is emphatically, NO! NO! NO!

Oh yes, I almost forgot. About this "plaintiff v. prosecutor" theory. It is a blatantly frivolous and meritless argument, which has no basis in fact. A casual glance at any "criminal court" paperwork will identify the "plaintiff" as the state and the "defendant" as a human being. One party is of substance, and the other is a fiction. Constitutionally speaking (or lawfully speaking) the state is not a proper party in any case dealing with the liberty of free People. For in truth, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the Common Law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own 'person,' free from all restraint or interference of others [including government], unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. (Union Pacific v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). I note the court's language in Warth, in pertinent part, relative to criminal [cases], "Of course, pleadings must be something more than an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable. [Citation omitted]." (Warth, id., 509) Under such consideration, a criminal "complaint of a [plaintiff-state] is little more than such an exercise. Apart from the conjectural nature of the asserted injury, the line of causation between [an accused's alleged] actions and such injury [in the abstract, as it relates to a state] is not apparent from [its] complaint." (Id.) Nor are there facts showing how this abstract creature actually suffered an actual injury in fact from such alleged conduct. There is not even a "casual connection." Remember states are fictitious in nature, whereas human defendants, in criminal cases, are of substance, tangible, and palpable. The court in Warth expounded that: "...when the asserted harm is a generalized grievance [such as so-called traffic cases] shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens [People] that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction [citation omitted]. Second, even when the plaintiff has alleged injury sufficient to meet the 'case or controversy' requirement, this Court has held that the plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties [not before the court]" (Warth, id., at 499-500.) This debunks the theory that prosecutors/plaintiffs, are entitled to bring an actual case at Law and that they cannot, in reality, share in the loss of life, liberty or damage to personal property by, say, a murdered victim and his/her family. A prosecutor is not an interested party to the case, in actuality. He can only sympathize with the family like the rest of us. No special powers over the People whom the so-called prosecutor claims to serve and protect. Utter nonsense. If such were actually beneficial to People, as a whole, there would be much safer environments and less crime within the country; however, a quick perusal and examination of crime statistics, a fair assessment of jail and prison population reports, compared with, your local and national news media outlets will show the truth of governments' boast in its "protect and serve" status as a mere fallacy. It is only in the providence of God that such a boast and promise may be made and believed in.

Nevertheless, will it still be contended that the state is "represented" by the prosecutor, who, in turn, brings the criminal charges against one of the People for breaking what appears to be merely a public offense, or rights of the people as a whole? But this too, cannot withstand the requirements of standing. You will note that, say, murder is not an offense that is committed against the so-called "public-at-large." If the offense was committed within a certain block of a certain town, of a certain county, of a certain state, then, in actuality, this murder had no actual impact on the lives, liberties, and properties of others within the state, not on that particular block at that particular time. Indeed, there is truly no immediate threat to others because someone is killed in their vicinity. Even in front of them. It is what is believed in the circumstances, under the particular situation, at the time of the incident. And that can only be done by the people who are in the immediate vicinity. For instance, police killings of innocent people are on the rise in every major city of a state in this country. But are these states concerned about the welfare of the people who were near the public places of these governmental killings? Most of these cases are not indicted, and the few that are dealt with the fact that the killing was of an unjustifiable nature between two people of substance, where there was public outcry by the people who actually witnessed the offense committed in their community. And it should be considered a public offense where the killing was committed by a public official, and not by a private individual concerning a private matter, which would concern "private rights." Nevertheless, the aforementioned cases dealt with the issue of "generalized grievances," which is directly on point with the assertion that a state prosecutor may seek criminal charges against one of the People in the state. But again, constitutionally speaking, this theory fails as well, for even the prosecutor must be able to meet the burden of a plaintiff in alleging that the criminal conduct alleged in some way affected his right to be directly free from it. He/she MUST prove an injury in fact was committed against him/her or that he/she shared in the injury. As the cases aforementioned suggests, the injury must be palpable, concrete, distinct and particularized. It cannot be abstract, hypothetical, or conjectural. It should be noted that so-called public officials cannot and never have protected the People at large. The point may proven by merely assessing the infamous 911 catastrophe, and the many serial murders and rapes that continue to plague the country. In reality, government is under no obligation to protect any of the people. (Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 ) One of the major reasons for the creation of governments was to protect the people at large or as a nation against invasions of other nations. But not individually. (United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598)(Congress had no power to protect a college student who was raped twice.) Such a protective status does not guarantee the lives of each and every one of the People, at all times, in every circumstance and situation. So this protective status of governments is one of ambiguity. You want facts? Choose a war and its casualties.

So then, constitutionally, the state prosecutor has no standing to sue for the nameless, faceless crowd of the People inhibiting the territory known as a state. So where does this power come from? (The prince of the power of the air.) Respectfully Submitted.

10
  • 4
    This is a rant, and I can't see anywhere that it poses an answer to the question.
    – feetwet
    Jul 1, 2017 at 13:50
  • Why, because it isn't written in legalese? Define the term "rant" and you may discover your misuse of the term, as it relates to the response. Quite clearly the question was answered, and you have no viable retort, disproving it. If this is not the case, please explain your mysterious position. Jul 1, 2017 at 21:23
  • 1
    A rant means speaking or shouting at length in an angry, impassioned way. You may not be physically speaking or shouting, but your writing would probably be construed as such. It's a rant not because you're not writing it in legalese, but because of the use of exclamation marks and words in uppercase. I'd say that calling this post a rant is a perfectly apt description. That notwithstanding, this constitutes an attempt to answer, albeit one with typos, legal misconceptions, and that is, above all just plainly wrong.
    – jimsug
    Jul 2, 2017 at 0:20
  • Cease with such nonsense. There is no "rant" because of capitalization and exclamation marks. Perhaps a refresher course on grammar and punctuation is needed. Such were used for emphasis, and there is no limit on what form of emphasis I may use. So, enough of this vanity. It is unproductive. Typos have been corrected, thank you. (I always have a habit of rereading what I write, and I did find one or two spelling mistakes.) I appreciate your dissatisfaction with my answer. Your accusations are with no bases in fact. States are fictions. Perhaps delusion is has taken its affect. So be it. Jul 2, 2017 at 1:36
  • 1
    Britton actually says "There are no common law offenses against the United States, United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415, and section 5204 does not of itself create any offense against the United States." It does not say "There can be no common law offenses against the United States or a state;" it just talks about offenses against the United States. Hudson doesn't have that quote either. Fake Supreme Court quotes aren't valid legal authority.
    – cpast
    Jul 2, 2017 at 15:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .