CORPUS ​DELICTI

"​For ​a ​crime ​to ​exist​, ​there ​must ​be ​an ​injured ​party ​(​Corpus ​Delicti​) ​There ​can ​be ​no ​sanction ​or
penalty ​imposed on one because of this ​Constitutional”

.​ ​Sherer ​v​. ​Cullen ​481 ​F​. ​945​:

Supreme courts ​ruled ​"​Without ​Corpus ​delicti ​there ​can be ​no ​crime​" ​In ​every ​prosecution for
crime ​it ​is ​necessary ​to ​establish ​the ​"​corpus ​delecti​”​, ​i​.​e​.​, ​the ​body ​or ​elements ​of ​the ​crime​.​"

People ​v​. ​Lopez​, ​62 ​Ca​.​Rptr​. ​47​, ​254 ​C​.​A​.​2d ​185​.

"​In ​every ​criminal ​trial​, ​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​. ​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​.​)​.

"​As ​a ​general ​principal​, ​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​. ​" ​People ​v​. ​Superior ​Court​, ​126
Cal​.​Rptr​.​2d ​793​.
.
R
“​Without standing​, ​there ​is ​no ​actual ​or ​justiciable ​controversy​, ​and ​courts ​will ​not ​entertain ​such
cases​. ​(​3 ​Witlen​, ​Cal​. ​Procedure ​(​3rd ​ed​. ​1985​) Actions ​$ ​44​, ​pp ​70​-​72​.​) ​“​Typically​, ​.​.​. ​the
standing ​inquiry ​requires ​careful ​judicial ​examination ​of ​a ​complaint​'​s allegations to ascertain
whether ​the ​particular ​plaintiff ​is ​entitled ​to ​an ​adjudication ​of ​the ​particular ​claims ​asserted​.​”
(​Allen ​v​. ​Wright​, ​(1​ 984​) ​46​8 ​U​.​S​. ​7​37​, ​75​2​.​.​. ​Wh​ether ​one ​has ​standing ​in ​a ​particular ​ca​se
generally ​revolved ​around ​the question whether ​that ​person ​has ​rights ​that ​may ​suffer ​some
injury​, ​actual ​or ​threatened​.​" ​Clifford ​S​. ​v​. ​Superior ​Court​, ​45 ​Cal​.Rptr​.​2d ​333​, ​335​.

SEVEN ​ELEMENTS ​OF ​JURISDICTION​:

S
1​. ​The ​accused ​must ​be ​properly identified​, ​identified ​in ​such ​a ​fashion ​there ​is ​no ​room ​for
mistaken ​identity​. ​The ​individual ​must ​be ​singled ​out ​from ​all ​others​; ​otherwise​, ​anyone ​could ​be
subject ​to ​arrest ​and ​trial without ​benefit of ​"​wrong ​party​" ​defense​. ​Almost ​always​, ​the ​means ​of
identification ​is ​a ​person​'s ​proper ​name​, ​BUT ANY MEANS OF ​IDENTIFICATION IS
E​QU ​ ALLY ​VAL​ID ​IF ​SA​ID ​MEA ​ NS ​DIFFE​REN​T​IA​TE ​ S ​THE ​ACCUSE ​ D ​W​IT​H​O​U​T
DOUBT​. (​There ​is ​no ​constitutionally ​valid ​requirement ​you ​must ​identify ​yourself​, ​see ​4th
Amendment​; ​also see​, ​Brown vs​. ​Texas​, ​443 US ​47 ​and ​Kolender ​v​. ​Lawson ​461 ​US ​352​.​)

i
1
PARE
2​. ​The ​statute ​of ​offense ​must ​be ​identified ​by ​its ​proper ​or ​common ​name​. ​A ​number ​is
insufficient​. ​Today​, ​a ​citizen ​may ​stand ​in ​jeopardy ​of ​criminal ​sanctions ​for ​alleged ​violation ​of
statutes​, ​regulations​, ​or ​even ​low​-​level ​bureaucratic ​orders ​(​example​: ​colorado ​National
Monument ​Superintendent​'​s ​Orders ​regarding ​an ​unleashed ​dog ​or ​a ​dog ​defecating ​on ​a ​trail​)​. ​If
a ​number were ​to ​be ​deemed ​sufficient​, government ​could ​brin​g ​new ​and different ​charges ​at ​any
time ​by ​al​le​ gi​ng ​clerical error​. ​For any act​ ​to b​ e ​triable as ​an ​offense​, ​it ​must ​b​e ​declared t​ o ​be ​a
crime​. ​Charges ​must ​negate ​any ​exception ​forming ​part ​of ​the ​statutory ​definition ​of ​an ​offense​,
by ​affirmative ​non​-​applicability​. ​In ​other ​words​, ​any ​charge ​must ​affirmatively ​negate ​any
exception ​found ​in ​the ​law​.

f
ww
$
A
V
3​. ​The ​acts ​of ​alleged ​offense ​must ​be ​described in ​non​-​prejudicial ​language ​and detail ​so ​as ​to
enable ​a ​person ​of ​average ​intelligence ​to ​understand ​nature ​of ​charge ​(​to ​enable ​preparation ​of
defense​)​; ​the ​actual ​act ​or acts constituting ​the ​offense complained ​of​. ​The ​charge ​must ​not ​be
described ​by ​parroting ​the statute​; ​not by ​the ​language ​of ​same​. ​The ​naming ​of ​the ​acts ​of ​the
offense ​d​esc​r​ib​es ​a ​specific ​offense​ ​wh​ereas ​the verbiage o​ f ​a ​statute ​describes ​on​l​y a​ genera​ l
class ​of ​offense​. ​Facts ​must ​be ​stated​. ​Conclusions ​cannot ​be ​considered ​in ​the ​determination ​of
probable ​cause​.

4​. ​The ​accuser ​must ​be named​. ​He​/​she ​may ​be ​an ​officer ​or ​a third ​party​, ​but ​some ​positively
identifiable person ​(​human ​being​) ​must ​accuse​; ​some ​certain ​person ​must ​take ​responsibility for
the ​making ​of ​the ​accusation​, ​not ​an ​agency ​or ​an ​institution​. ​This ​is ​the ​only ​valid ​means ​by
which ​a ​citizen ​may ​begin to ​face ​his ​accuser​. ​Also​, ​the ​injured ​party ​(​corpus ​delicti​) ​must ​make
the ​accusation​. ​Hearsay evidence may ​not ​be ​provided​. ​Anyone ​else ​testifying ​that ​they heard
that ​another ​p​arty ​w​as ​injured ​does n​ ot ​qualif​ ​y a​ s ​d​irect ​ev​idence​.

5​. ​The ​accusation ​must ​be ​made ​under ​penalty ​of ​perjury​. ​If ​perjury ​cannot ​reach ​the ​accuser​,
there ​is ​no ​accusation​. ​Otherwise​, ​anyone ​may ​accuse ​another ​falsely ​without ​risk​.

6. ​To ​comply ​with ​the ​five ​elements ​above​, ​that ​is ​for ​the ​accusation ​to ​be ​valid​, ​the ​accused
must ​be ​accorded ​due ​process​. ​Accuser ​must ​have ​complied ​with ​law​, ​procedure ​and ​form ​in
bringing ​the ​charge​. ​This ​includes ​court​-​determined probable ​cause​, ​summons ​and ​notice
procedure​. ​If ​lawful ​process may ​be ​abrogated ​in placing ​a ​citizen ​in ​jeopardy​, ​then ​any ​means
may ​be ​utilized ​t​o d​ e​ ​pr​ive ​a m
​ an ​of ​his ​f​reedom,​ a​ nd a​ l​ ​l ​dissent ​may b​ ​e s​ tifle​ d ​by ​utilizat​ion​ ​of
defective ​process​.
I

CAN
"​The ​essential elements ​of due ​process ​are notice ​and ​an ​opportunity ​to ​defend​. ​“​Simon ​v​. ​Craft​,
182 ​US ​427​.
i
"​one ​is ​not ​entitled ​to ​protection unless he ​has ​reasonable ​cause ​to ​apprehend ​danger ​from ​a
direct ​answer​. ​The ​mere ​assertion ​of ​a ​privilege ​does ​not ​immunize ​him​; ​the ​court ​must
determine ​whether ​his ​refusal ​is ​justified​, ​and ​may ​require ​that he ​is ​mistaken ​in ​his ​refusal​.
“​Hoffman ​v​. ​United ​States, ​341 ​U​.​S​. ​479 ​(​1951​)
1

7​. ​The ​court ​must ​be one of competent jurisdiction​. ​To ​have ​valid ​process​, ​the ​tribunal ​must ​be ​a
creature ​of ​its ​constitution​, ​in ​accord ​with ​the ​law ​of ​its ​creation​, ​i​.​e​., ​Article ​III ​judge​. ​Lacking
any ​of ​the ​seven ​elements ​or ​portions ​thereof​, ​(​unless ​waived​, ​intentionally ​or ​unintentionally)
all ​designed ​to ​ensure ​against ​further ​prosecution ​(​double ​jeopardy​)​; ​it ​is ​the ​defendant​'​s ​duty ​to
inform ​the ​court of ​facts ​alleged ​for ​determination ​of ​sufficiency ​to ​support ​conviction​, ​should
one ​be ​obtained​. ​Otherwise​, ​there ​is ​no ​lawful ​notice​, ​and ​charge ​must ​be ​dismissed ​for ​failure ​to
state ​an ​offense​. ​Without ​lawful ​notice​, ​there ​is ​no ​personal ​jurisdiction ​and ​all proceedings prior
to ​filing ​of ​a ​proper ​trial ​document ​in compliance ​with ​the ​seven ​elements ​is ​void​. ​A ​lawful ​act ​is
always ​legal ​but ​many ​legal ​acts ​by ​government ​are ​often ​unlawful​. ​Most ​bureaucrats ​lack
elementary ​knowledge ​and ​incentive ​to ​comply with the ​mandates ​of ​constitutional ​due ​process​.
They ​will ​make ​mistakes​. ​Numbers ​beyond ​count ​have ​been ​convicted ​without ​benefit ​of
governmental ​adherence ​to ​these ​seven ​elements​. ​Today​,

informations ​are ​being ​filed ​and ​prosecuted ​by ​"​accepted ​practice​" rather ​than ​due ​process ​of
law​.

Jurisdiction​, ​once ​challenged​, ​is ​to ​be ​proven​, ​not ​by ​the ​court​, ​but ​by ​the ​party ​attempting ​to
a​ss​ert ​jurisdic​ ​tion.​ T
​ he b​ urden ​of p​ roof ​of ​jurisdiction l​ i​es ​w​ith ​the ​asserter​. ​The ​cour​t ​i​s ​o​nly ​to
rule ​on ​the sufficiency ​of ​the ​proof tendered​. ​See​, ​"​McNutt ​v​. ​General Motors Acceptance Corp​,
298 ​U​.​S​. ​178 ​(​1936​)​. ​The ​origins ​of ​this ​doctrine ​of ​law ​may ​be ​found ​in ​"​MAXFIELD ​v​.
LEVY​, ​4 ​U​.​S​. ​330 ​(​1797​)​, ​4 ​U​.​S​. ​330 ​(​Dall​.​) ​2 ​Dall​. ​381 ​2 ​U​.​S​. ​381 ​1 ​L​.​Ed​. ​424

NO ​VICTIM​.. ​NO ​CRIME​!​!!!