Let me start by saying that I admire your curiosity and willingness to share your thoughts on a complicated subject.
As an attorney, I feel compelled to respond because there is a lot going on here. I understand the underlying message, but some of the legal processes you mention are being taken out of context.
Subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ), for example, is a procedural rule that involves the power of a court to exercise jurisdiction over the subject matter of a civil lawsuit that is filed in its court. The scope of the federal courts' SMJ is outlined in the Constitution. Federal courts can only hear cases asserting a federal right or those between citizens of different states when the matter in controversy is over $75K. It is not exercised unless someone sues you and it does not apply to criminal cases. So a Socratic method-based discussion on this topic would be futile.
Next, it is typically juries--not courts--that convict people. Further, the rules of evidence are governed by statute and are used to determine the admissibility of evidence. They are very dry and very boring. Evidence comes in the form of documents, testimony, physical objects, etc., and it is introduced to prove the elements of a crime or cause of action. To convict a person of a crime, the prosecution has to prove each "element" of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. So murder, for example, requires the prosecution to prove the following: 1. an unlawful killing of a human being 2. malice aforethought (intent). When a court (read: jury) wrongfully convicts someone, it typically involves a constitutional violation--not the rules of evidence.
"an unlawful killing of a human being":
So, if some law says it is ok to kill a human being, say, when a cop or soldier kills, it is ok.
That is the problem with state-made law.
Well, it really comes down to what you mean by ok.
Is it morally ok to kill a person? Personally, I don't think it's ever morally right to kill someone.
Is it ok legally (meaning you won't go to jail)? It depends. First, there aren't any enacted statutes or "laws" if you will, that say it's ok to kill a human being. "Unlawful" simply means without a defense or justification such as insanity or self-defense.
SMJ is not a procedural rule; it's a required element of a valid cause of action. It is always presumed because there's no evidence establishing SMJ absent tangible proof of a damaged individual or group of individuals.
Thanks for being honest about your conflict of interest, though.
No, it's a required element for standing. A cause of action is a theory of liability, like negligence. And SMJ is not always presumed. Take federal subject matter jurisdiction, for example. Federal courts only have jurisdicition over two types of subject matter: 1. cases that involve diverse citizens when the the amount in controversy is over $75K and 2. cases that involve federal questions (i.e. federal rights). Similar limitations also exist on the state level. Traffic courts, for example, do not have SMJ over probate matters.