Any Help Shepherdizing a demurrer?

[Homebummingit]

What is the name of your state? California
No Valid cause of action, lack of standing, no corpus delecti
1. No valid case/controversy because standing to invoke the judicial process requires an
actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the
ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury
(3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72) Frasher v. Rader
124 Cal. 133, 56 P. 797 People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27 People v. Superior
Court 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, Allen v. Wright 468 U.S. 737, 752 (1984) Clifford
S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335.
2. The City of Riverside has no standing because the prosecution must prove the corpus
delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the
existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254
C.A.2d 185. People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47, People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-
1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.].
3. The City of Riverside has no “Corpus delecti” of crime consisting of fact of injury, loss,
or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause.” People v. Jennings, 53 Cal 3d
334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh
den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v. Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d
1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod
53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and
reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh
den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v. Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d
590; People v. Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560
NE2d 1012; Brown v. State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L

 

[Taxing Matters]

What exactly is the action that the city has brought against you? Your write up indicates a criminal prosecution. In a California criminal prosecution, a demurrer is used as an alternative to entering a plea (not guilty, guilty, no contest) and the demurrer accepts the facts as alleged by the prosecution but challenges that those facts, as stated, do not amount to crime. See California Penal Code §§ 1002 - 1008.

What you are doing is much different than that. You are raising two issues. In your first point you raise a lack of standing based on the idea that the city has suffered no harm. While that might work in a civil proceeding, it does not work in a criminal one because there is no requirement that the government have suffered any harm in order to prosecute an offense. All that matters is whether the defendant violated a criminal statute. Criminal statues are valid without there having to be demonstrated harm to the state, or to any one else for that matter. For that reason, I think that argument is clearly doomed to fail.

Your second and third points are arguing lack of “corpus delicti.” Where I have seen pro se parties raise this argument they have always failed because they do not understand the concept of corpus delicti and how it applies to the crime they are being charged with. Your write-up suggests you too do not really understand the concept. Without knowing the particular crime charged and what it is that you think the government has to have as evidence to prosecute it, I cannot say for sure you would fail, but as what you wrote is similar to arguments from pro se parties I have seen that failed, I am not optimistic that you have a winning case.

Moreover, your write-up is weak in that it simply makes conclusory statements and then throws in a whole long lists of string cites. That doesn't help the court much at all. As one who clerked for awhile for a federal judge, I can tell you that this kind of pro se pleading would not much impress a judge as you are forcing the judge to ferret out what you are talking about. No judge is going to want to look at all those cases that you put in the string cite. Listing more cases does not itself mean your point is valid. In a legal writing class in law school, your write up would get a failing grade.

A much stronger argument would point to specific facts in the city's complaint and then explain how the law as applied to those specific facts favors the point you wish to make, quoting the relevant parts of the most significant cases (perhaps 2-3 cases is all that you ought to use absent something extraordinary and often just one, if the facts are on point, may be all you need). Don't make the judge have to do a lot of work to figure out your argument. The best briefs are ones that make the point without the judge ever having to look beyond the brief to figure out what it is that you are saying.

No one here is going to take the rather extensive time it would it would take to cite check (Shepardize/key cite) all those cases. If you want that, pay a lawyer to do it or do the work yourself.

Now if you want to explain the facts of the case and what offense you are being prosecuted for, you might get some more helpful suggestions on things that might actually work for you.

Finally, why did you pick the consumer contracts board? Nothing in your post suggests this involves a consumer contract issue.

 

[FlyingRon]

To summarize TM's point, it is society that is harmed by someone committing crimes, not the state and not the "victim." The state is merely the body that prosecutes on the behalf of the population at large. For instance, in California, you'll note it's actually "The People" who are the party that prosecutes rather than the state.

Shepping cases are merely to check to see if a case you're citing has subsequently been affected by a later decision. The term comes from the old Sheppard's Citations volumes that crossreferences cases in other decisions. This is easily done by online services now. The one that is readily available (for a fee) to people is fastcase. Your local library or a nearby university may allow you access to a more attorney based service (Lexis, Thompson...).

As pointed out, you just don't throw out a principle and a cite, you need to explain how it applies to your case in your motion or whatever pleading you are making.

 

[Homebummingit]

I thought I replied through email? Two citations for sitting down on the sidewalk, and one for riding my bike on the sidewalk. All because I fly signs. And they are only ticketing me. RMC 9.04 doesn't allow stool's

 

[Homebummingit]

I also filed a Brady Request.