Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending
70
  ·  5 months ago

Marc, what you're saying is so obvious and true. I have no doubt of this. So what is your theory as to why you're pretty much the only person preaching the truth?

·
65
  ·  5 months ago

Umm, I can name at least three more,....and have first hand personal knowledge of the efficacy of this method.

Don't leave home with out it!!

·
65
  ·  5 months ago

because he's preaching nonsense?

·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

Provide the evidence that proves the claim that these laws are applicable.

·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

The question is argumentative. Evidence does not apply.

Evidence doesn't speak to matters of law. It speaks to matters of fact. Youre asking for evidence where evidence is not relevant.

Matters of law are controlled (as i explained elsewhere itt) by stare decisis and judicial decision (established by argumentation, not by evidence). Are you asking for an explanation of the origins of english common law and stare decisis?

It seems kind of pointless, because then youll say 'well, you cant prove that applies'. My kid brother and I used to play the same game when i was 7. He would say something, and i would say "prove it" then he would say something to prove it, and i would say 'prove it', then he would say something to prove it, and i would say 'prove it'.

Its a compelling argument. To a five-year-old.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

The question is getting at an essential element of the charge, i.e. applicability of the law or statute.

How can someone be said to violate a code if the code does not apply?

As such, it is essential to prove (with evidence) that the law applies.

It is not good enough to merely assert a claim. Much like your claim that the question is argumentative. How is it argumentative if the very nature of any validity to a claim is having evidence or facts that back up that assumption?

As an aside, give me the explanation for the origin of English common law and stare decisis.

Edit:

It seems kind of pointless, because then youll say 'well, you cant prove that applies'.

It's not pointless because that's exactly what I am saying. No evidence exists as to the applicability of the law. Ergo, it doesn't apply.

My kid brother and I used to play the same game when i was 7. He would say something, and i would say "prove it" then he would say something to prove it, and i would say 'prove it', then he would say something to prove it, and i would say 'prove it'.

The problem with your anecdotal story is that you are asking to continually prove statements, whereas with this line of questioning, you end with evidence and facts.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

How is applicability of the law a matter of law? Applicability, whether or not exists, is a matter of fact.

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

Applicability, whether or not exists, is a matter of fact.

not in the US. Or any jurisdiction ive ever heard of. I have to ask... what kind of 'evidence' could there ever be to establish the 'fact' that a law, any law, was applicable to a person or circumstance. The type of evidence you are asking for (factual evidence in support of an argumentative issue) does not exist because it cannot exist.

Or is your point that no law applies to anyone? because 'prove it'.

Because if it is, thats an interesting theory. And a great way to end up in prison if you ever use it in your own defense.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

not in the US. Or any jurisdiction ive ever heard of. I have to ask... what kind of 'evidence' could there ever be to establish the 'fact' that a law, any law, was applicable to a person or circumstance.

How is the statement "All laws are applicable," a fact?

Saying that that statement is a fact is presumptive, and it is being asserted without any evidence.

When I measure the temperature, I can use a thermometer and make a statement that "This thermometer reads 293.2 Kelvin," and provide evidence, the actual thermometer reading, that makes this statement a fact.

On the other hand, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and all other statists are saying, "The temperature outside is 1000 Kelvin."

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

Saying that that statement is a fact is presumptive, and it is being asserted without any evidence.

It isn't a fact at all, which is why i used quotes around the word 'fact'.

As an example, if I ask you "What evidence might one present to prove what the temperature is outside"
You could say to me "Well, i could go outside with a thermometer, measure the temperature, and that would be evidence to show what temperature it was outside" Because the question that is being asked is a question of fact, there is some sort of possible relevant evidence to demonstrate its truth or flasehood.

but if i ask you the same question about demonstrating the applicability of a law, there is no way to prove or disprove it (at least, no way that isnt argumentative and therefore self-referential). Regardless of whether its true of false, when i ask you 'how can one prove that a law is applicable', there is no way to answer the question. Because the question is not a question of fact.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

It isn't a fact at all, which is why i used quotes around the word 'fact'.

OK, sure.

but if i ask you the same question about demonstrating the applicability of a law, there is no way to prove or disprove it (at least, no way that isnt argumentative and therefore self-referential). Regardless of whether its true of false, when i ask you 'how can one prove that a law is applicable', there is no way to answer the question. Because the question is not a question of fact.

What do you mean there is no way to prove or disprove "how can one prove that a law is applicable?"?

The answer is the same with how do you prove any other statement: provide evidence or facts backing it up.

What about a similar question, "What evidence or facts do you have that exist that prove that any law applies because you are physically located in a particular geographical region?"

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

What about a similar question, "What evidence or facts do you have that exist that prove that any law applies because you are physically located in a particular geographical region?"

So i could cite laws and court decisions, but that would just be more law (which you don't think applies).

It would be like me saying "what evidence or facts do you have to support the statement '13 is a prime number'"

And you can make whatever mathematical argument you use to prove a number is prime.

And i say "oh well, i don't believe in math, so your mathematical argumentation isn't valid. because its just more math supporting the original math. I want evidence that the number is prime"

But there is no evidence. There is only argumentation. In this particular case, that argumentation is mathematical, rather than legal, and in some ways the argumentation you can present is more concrete. But its still argumentation.

The same is true with the "might vs right" question you pose in your earlier comments. You can't prove something is right or wrong based on evidence, like you can prove its 200 degrees kelvin out or whatever, because questions of right and wrong aren't factual questions like temperature, theyre ethical questions that are answered by ethical argumentation. To support the statement "this is right" or "that is wrong" requires argumentation, not evidence.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

Or is your point that no law applies to anyone? because 'prove it'.

Maybe it is.

Because if it is, thats an interesting theory. And a great way to end up in prison if you ever use it in your own defense.

And, so if you end up in prison using that line of questioning, is it right for these people to kidnap and hold you there against your will?

Or do they just have the 'might' to back it up?

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

is it right for these people to kidnap and hold you there against your will?
Or do they just have the 'might' to back it up?

Maybe right and wrong doesn't apply to them. lets see some evidence that it does. see how much fun this kind of logic is.

that said, i'm a pragmatist right and wrong isn't really my thing.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

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?

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

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.

this is correct. thats why doing things like citing laws and prior court rulings is argumentative, not evidentiary.

Let me understand properly, you're saying is that the law applies by definition?

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.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

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.

Really?

http://marcstevens.net/articles/debunking-territorialpersonal-jurisdiction-doesnt-exist.html

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

yeah, really.

Im not sure what the point of the linked article is. Are you saying he presents evidence in the article? He doesn't. He only presents argumentation.

Its also, as i noted before, quackery. deficient argumentation based on uncited, redacted court documents. Which, for some reason that surpasses my understanding, do not include the judges decision. Its cherry picking. Its like running a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis and choosing to reveal only a few paragraphs of the procedure and not the results.

Also, its worthwhile to point out that hes citing a traffic court judge on consitutional law.

I mean, if youre looking for legal argumentation that jurisdiction is a thing, its right there in the constitution.

If youre asking for my own legal argumentation to refute it, it isnt very hard. Territorial jurisdiction is right there in article three of the constitution (at least in the US... i have no idea how things work in the great white north, but its probably similar)

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

emphasis mine.

Of course, this is argument, not evidence. And its based on laws (that you don't believe in), so its not going to change your mind. But whats the point in going to court and arguing that there shouldnt be laws when the whole point of a court is to interpret them. Youll just lose.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

I mean, if youre looking for legal argumentation that jurisdiction is a thing, its right there in the constitution.

So ... the State has jurisdiction because the constitution says that the State has power?

What gives the constitution any power?

Are you saying that the law applies because some other written document says it does?

Im not sure what the point of the linked article is. Are you saying he presents evidence in the article? He doesn't. He only presents argumentation.

It is not argumentative to ask for evidence to prove that a claim is true. If I were to take a position in a court that doesn't have any evidence to support my claim, the prosecutor and judge would consider that claim as having no merit and not be a factor in the court decision, i.e. there is a lack of fact or evidence supporting my supposed statement.

On the other hand, if I ask the prosecutor to provide evidence for his claim that the laws apply and he is unable to furnish any proof to support this but the court makes the assumption that this claim is true and continues with the trial or what have you, then that is a double standard since the rules don't apply to both parties in the same way.

Its also, as i noted before, quackery. deficient argumentation based on uncited, redacted court documents. Which, for some reason that surpasses my understanding, do not include the judges decision. Its cherry picking. Its like running a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis and choosing to reveal only a few paragraphs of the procedure and not the results.

The only portions of the court documents that are redacted are a person's name and the number associated to the hearing of the case (or other minutae to completely identify it). If you would actually read them, you would see that. The redaction that you bring up is nothing more than to protect privacy and doesn't play any role here, so I can only assume you bring it up to discredit the entirety of the documents as opposed to any rational discussion about what they say.

I can't say anything as to the veracity of the documents that are provided, but if you take them at face value (or if hearings are public record ... not sure if they are or not) for what is written (and if you read anything, there is a judge, court house, and date all associated to it -- so some type of investigative work can be done, if you are so inclined ... ), then you'll see that the judge agrees that the claim that the law applies is an essential element of the charge and requires proof from the prosecution.

Also, its worthwhile to point out that hes citing a traffic court judge on consitutional law.

All laws are based on this claim. It doesn't it matter if this is "only" traffic court.

Of course, this is argument, not evidence. And its based on laws (that you don't believe in), so its not going to change your mind.

Very true.

But whats the point in going to court and arguing that there shouldnt be laws when the whole point of a court is to interpret them.

More often than not, you are compelled to go to court, otherwise they kidnap and imprison you.

The point is to make it well-known the inconsistency in which they apply their own rules, that it is a double standard and fundamentally dishonest.

Youll just lose.

Are you sure about that?

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

So ... the State has jurisdiction because the constitution says that the State has power? What gives the constitution any power? Are you saying that the law applies because some other written document says it does?

and later

The point is to make it well-known the inconsistency in which they apply their own rules, that it is a double standard and fundamentally dishonest.

No. Im saying the law applies because the government has the power to enforce it. However, that law is internally consistent. You might not agree that it is moral, but a court is not there to adjudicate morality.

Are you sure about that?

Yeah. And if youre going to

The only portions of the court documents that are redacted are a person's name and the number associated to the hearing of the case (or other minutae to completely identify it). If you would actually read them, you would see that.

No. Not quite. Perhaps you should have looked more carefully.

Now, look at the upper, right corner. You see that little number 25? That is a page number. Between the cover page, and the other paragraph cited, that makes 3 total pages shown, and at least 22 pages not shown.

Of course, i could just look the case up myself. But the "minutae" blacked out on the cover page, unfortunately, conceal all of the possible ways i could do so. So mr. stevens is making his argument by cherry picking 2 pages out of a 25 page transcript. Three pages which don't, for those of you following along at home, don't even include the ruling. At the risk of sounding repetitive: quackery.

note -- with the judge and the date, i could probably pay a researcher to go out to the courthouse and find it for me, but i suspect thats more money than most are willing to pay to make a point.

Are you sure about that?

Yeah, im sure. Im sure youll now send me to mr stevens website, where he lists all of his "victories". I actually looked into a few of them, and the ones i have seen that actually had enough info to dig up the actual court records (most of them are redacted like the one above) are grossly misrepresented.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

No. Im saying the law applies because the government has the power to enforce it.

I brought this up earlier ... are you agreeing with the old adage that "might makes right"?

Edit: forgot the word agreeing.

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

and i replied. I really don't believe there is a 'right'. Might is simply reality.

·
·
·
·
68
  ·  5 months ago

... Might is simply reality.

·
·
·
·
·
65
  ·  5 months ago

EDIT -- that was supposed to link directly to the supreme court line

62
  ·  5 months ago

great share !thanks @marcstevens for this discovery of clear and undeniable truth on where we are at right now in so many important domains! dark times indeed ! bring the light )

65
  ·  5 months ago

downvoted for quackery.

the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to issues of fact, not issues of law. issues of law, in countries that use the english common law system (canada and the US among them), are decided based on stare decisis -- the judge's interpretation of prior court rulings.

Its not a bug, its a feature.

·
58
  ·  5 months ago

That is a common tactic to conflate a practical application of law with a theoretical one, stare decisis and res judicata. Whether a written instrument applies and creates obligations on someone is NOT a theoretical issue of law or interpretation. You're confusing what the law says and means, as opposed to application. Quackery indeed.