{Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I am only posting this for discussions purposes}

I posted this just a bit earlier on the American forum, so, I hope its ok for me to post it here. Its just I don't think the courts have any standing against Marc.

---

Without a valid "cause of action" there's no corpus delicti. If there's no corpus delicti a case has no standing. There are numorus cases dealing with corpus delicti and all say the same thing. Without a corpus delicti the plaintiff 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 besides the point.

For example:

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 prosecutor "did you file a valid cause of action against me?" Of course the prosecutor will have to answer yes, because, if they answered no, then, they just said they don't have a case against you.

So after they answer yes, I'd ask them "how many elements are required to file a valid cause of action?" Any argument by the prosecutor as to why that doesn't matter to the case is flatly wrong because these elements are central to the case. So of course they're gonna have to answer that there's three required elements.

Then I'd ask the prosecutor what are these three elements. By answering, the prosecutor themselves are gonna being 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 a 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 as a result of protecting the government from lawsuits when they fail to protect, even in cases where there was a restraining order.

Also, 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 is gonna be limited to. Anything beyond that is acting in ultra vires.

So these 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 legal right.

So, say, if you were growing a backyard full of weed, have you violated anyone's legal rights? No. So 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 of your rights will likely prompt intervention and threats from the judge. If that were to happen I'd have a few questions for the judge. Of course all 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 he or she was trying to intervene against my questions with regard to my rights. I'd first ask the judge if I had a right to a fair trial. After he answered that yes I do, then, I'd ask the judge if it were possible for me to get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest.

Of course he or she would have to answer that no I could not get a fair trial if there were a conflict of interest because there'd be an inherent interest against me.

Then I'd ask the judge who is it that he or she represents? And then ask isn't it a conflict of interest to have a judge, who represents the state who is the pretended plaintiff against me, intervene with my asking the plaintiff questions regarding my rights?

If I were in Marc's position I think I'd challenge the court's jurisdiction with regard to these points and move to have the case dismissed in lieu of an absence of corpus delicti and lack of a valid cause of action. I would argue that since the case against Marc is predicated upon alleged violation of US laws that these points are central to his case.


We all love you Marc.


Peace,
Popol Vuh

This is for Marc & Jodie, and, all the folks over at POT TV. I almost forgot to post this. This book has some excellent information I think could be quite helpful.

{Edit} Here's a video clip: Link






Peace everybody,
Popol Vuh

Great idea to post that, I have seen videos of Marc Stevens discussing that same court strategy, it's a pretty genius one!