Author: iamking

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

1. The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
2. The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.
3. The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.^[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)

(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—(1)kills members of that group;(2)causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;(3)causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;(4)subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;(5)imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or(6)transfers by force children of the group to another group;shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).(b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—(1)in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and(2)a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.(c)Incitement Offense.—Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.(d)Attempt and Conspiracy.—Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.(e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—(1)the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or(2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is—(A)a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));(B)an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));(C)a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or(D)present in the United States.(f)Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.—Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.(Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(a)(4), (b)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806, 1808; Pub. L. 110–151, § 2, Dec. 21, 2007, 121 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 111–122, § 3(a), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1091

The Roman Curia comprises the administrative institutions of the Holy See^{[note 1]} and the central body through which the affairs of the Catholic Church are conducted. It acts in the Pope‘s name and with his authority for the good and for the service of the particular churches and provides the central organization for the church to advance its objectives.^{[1][2][3][note 2]}

The structure and organization of responsibilities within the Curia are at present regulated by the apostolic constitution Pastor bonus, issued by Pope John Paul II on 28 June 1988,^[5] which Pope Francis has decided to revise.^[6][7][8]

Other bodies that play an administrative or consulting role in ecclesial affairs are sometimes mistakenly identified with the Curia, such as the Synod of Bishops and regional conferences of bishops. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 2015 that “the Synod of Bishops is not a part of the Roman Curia in the strict sense: it is the expression of the collegiality of bishops in communion with the Pope and under his direction. The Roman Curia instead aids the Pope in the exercise of his primacy over all the Churches.”^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Curia

In law, motu proprio (Latin for: “on his own impulse”) describes an official act taken without a formal request from another party. Some jurisdictions use the term sua sponte for the same concept.

In Catholic canon law, it refers to a document issued by the pope on his own initiative and personally signed by him.^[1] Such a document may be addressed to the whole Church, to part of it, or to some individuals.^[1] A document issued motu proprio has its legal effect even if the reasons given for its issuance are found to be false or fraudulent, a fact which would normally render the document invalid. Its validity is based on its issuance by the pope by his own initiative, not upon the reasons alleged.

The first motu proprio was promulgated by Pope Innocent VIII in 1484. It continues to be a common form of papal rescript, especially when establishing institutions, making minor changes to law or procedure, and when granting favours to persons or institutions.^[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motu_proprio

(a)In generalExcept as provided in subsection (e)—(1)Application to individualsIn the case of an individual, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal to 3.8 percent of the lesser of—(A)net investment income for such taxable year, or(B)the excess (if any) of—(i)the modified adjusted gross income for such taxable year, over(ii)the threshold amount.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1411

Effectively Tying the Bar Associations of the Respective Pan-American States Together and subverting our Constitution to United Nations International Law

http://barefootsworld.org/bar1947.html

Today an attorney is a sworn officer of the court, and by his own admission, as that officer, his duty is to impose the will of the state against the citizen.

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(Organized at Saratoga Springs New York, August 21, 1878)

It’s object shall be to advance the science of jurisprudence, promote the administration of justice and uniformity of legislation and of judicial decision throughout the Nation, uphold the honor of the profession of the law, encourage cordial intercourse among the members of the American Bar and to correlate the activities of the Bar organizations of the respective States on a representative basis, in the interest of the legal profession and of the public throughout the United States. (ABA Constitution, Article 1)

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR PEACE AND LAW THROUGH UNITED NATIONS (relative to the Bar Treaty of 1947)

RECOMMENDATIONS*

Resolved, That the American Bar Association notes with approval the further progress made, within the structure and Charter of the United Nations, at the recent Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Continental Peace and Security, held at Quitindinia in Brazil, in implementing the Act of Chapultepec and strengthening further the spirit of friendly consultations and of submission to law-governed procedures, as well as the means of united self-defense, throughout the Americas, against aggressions from outside and for the prevention of the causes of disputes and misunderstandings among the nations of this hemisphere. The Association hails with particular satisfaction the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, signed at Rio de Janeiro on September 2 by the representatives of nineteen American republics, as a concrete demonstration of what can be accomplished within the framework of the United Nations, by nations which are willing to submit themselves to the rule of law and to agree to act together for mutual assistance and defense against aggression clearly defined.

The Association commends this Treaty to the consideration of the Delegation of the United States in the General Assembly of the United Nations and to like-minded peoples because of its clear and specific statement and limitation of its scope and purposes and especially its acceptance of the principles of decision by a vote of two~thirds of the member nations on major questions (a majority vote on some others), with a party to a dispute between members excluded from voting on it, no nation required to use armed force without its consent, and no right or power on the part of any nation to “veto or block the defined procedures for pacific settlement of controversies within the Americas and for united action in the exercise of the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter, against aggression from any source, anywhere within a Continental American zone defined in the treaty.

Resolved Further, That the American Bar Association hails with especial satisfaction the progress made at Quitindinia and Rio de Janeiro because it has been fostered actively and substantially by lawyers of the Americas, through their respective bar associations and learned academies of the law; and that this Association pledges its continued support, through its own activities and its participation in the Inter-American Bar Association, in behalf of the objectives of the treaty and in behalf of peace, understanding, mutual assistance and self-defense, and the prevalence of the rule of law, throughout the Americas.

Resolved Further, That the American Bar Association favors and urges the earliest practicable ratification of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance by the Senate of the United States.

* These recommendations were adopted by the House of Delegates

II

Resolved, That the American Bar Association expresses its gratification that the General Assembly of the United Nations has before it for consideration and action a notable report by its distinguished committee, which submits definitive plans for the progressive development and the eventual statement or codification of the rules and principles of international law.

Resolved Further, That if the International Law Commission proposed by the report is authorized by the General Assembly and elected by the United Nations, this Association as an accredited organization long at work in the field shall tender and render to the Commission and the Secretariat such assistance as they desire that this Association shall undertake, through its constituted committees and sections as hitherto voted by the House of Delegates and in close cooperation with The Canadian Bar Association, to the continuance of which this Association pledges its best efforts.

III

Resolved, That the American Bar Association expresses again its considered opinion to be that the interests of peace, justice and law throughout the world will best be advanced through the continuance of united, outspoken support of the United Nations by the American people, and that efforts to strengthen and extend international organization, cooperation and control of matters which are international in their scope should be undertaken within the framework of the United Nations and on the basis of undivided support of that organization.

Resolved Further, That the American Bar Association urges that lawyers and other citizens shall do all they can in their home communities to maintain an informed public opinion in favor of working through the United Nations for accomplishing the great objectives of the Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

IV

Resolved, That while the American Bar Association has recognized and urged, at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Charter in 1945 and since, that strengthening amendments in several respects will be needed and should be considered in the light of experience, the Association respectfully submits to the Delegation of the United States in the General Assembly of the United Nations the Association’s opinion that at the present juncture there is an especial need that, through agreed-on interpretations of the Charter in the procedural rules or through the formulation and adoption of specific amendments of the Charter if need be, it shall be assured that two-thirds or other substantial majority of the nations which wish to submit themselves to the rule of law and accomplish the pacific settlement of international disputes can take effective action against aggression and do so within the procedures of the United Nations, beyond the power of a minority to “veto” and prevent the action of such a majority in these respects.

Resolved Further, That although the American Bar Association hopes that all members of the United Nations will accede to the principles of effective action by substantial majorities, such as have lately been accepted by nineteen republics of this hemisphere, all of which are members of the United Nations, the Association respectfully submits to the Delegation of the United States in the General Assembly the Association’s considered opinion that any such amendments, if proceeded with, should be specific and sufficient to accomplish the above-stated purpose, and that consideration should be given to so conditioning their submission for ratification as to make clear the intention of the ratifying members to put them into effect between themselves if and when they are ratified by at least two-thirds of the member States.

V

Resolved, That the American Bar Association expresses the keen interest of its members in the proposed International Trade Organization and its proposed Charter, to be given final form and approval at a conference to convene in Havana, Cuba, on November 21; and the Association recommends that when copies of the proposed Organization and Charter become available, the same should be studied carefully and thoroughly by the Congress and the people of the United States, and also reported on to the House of Delegates by the Section of International and Comparative Law, the committee on Commerce, and the Committee for Peace and Law Through United Nations, as hitherto directed by the House.

Resolved Further, That the American Bar Association is of the opinion that if the final form of the Organization and Charter would place binding obligations on its members, the membership of the United States in the Organization and Charter should become effective only when the same are submitted by the President and ratified by the Senate as a treaty; and in view of the effect of prospective provisions upon American tariffs, reciprocal arrangements, and financial obligations, only when approved also by the House of Representatives of the United States.