RE: Dirty Prosecution Tactic - Flipping the Burden of Proof
So i could cite laws and court decisions, but that would just be more law (which you don't think applies).
You can cite laws, if you want, and I would say that a citation of a law is a legal opinion, and ergo not a fact.
As for previous court decisions, I would say these are (more or less) legal opinions, as well. Indeed, they are opinions as to how to apply the law given certain facts and circumstances. Since the basis of all these decisions assume the validity of the claim that the law applies because you are physically located in a particular geographical region and because the validity of this claim is called into question, the facts (or lack thereof) have changed.
But there is no evidence. There is only argumentation. In this particular case, that argumentation is mathematical, rather than legal. But its still argumentation.
Let me understand properly, you're saying is that the law applies by definition?
this is correct. thats why doing things like citing laws and prior court rulings is argumentative, not evidentiary.
No, im saying that whether or not the law applies to a specific circumstance or person can only be established with legal argumentation. Not with evidence. You might not think this is the way it ought to work, but this is the way it does, in fact, work. That's why judges, not juries, decide issues of jurisdiction.