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 )
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 )
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?
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!!
because he's preaching nonsense?
Provide the evidence that proves the claim that these laws are applicable.
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.
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'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.
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.
How is applicability of the law a matter of law? 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.
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."
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.
OK, sure.
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?"
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.
Maybe it is.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Really?
http://marcstevens.net/articles/debunking-territorialpersonal-jurisdiction-doesnt-exist.html
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)
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.
I brought this up earlier ... are you agreeing with the old adage that "might makes right"?
Edit: forgot the word agreeing.
and i replied. I really don't believe there is a 'right'. Might is simply reality.
EDIT -- that was supposed to link directly to the supreme court line
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.
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.