Jurisdiction evidence

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: sorry to disagree with you. Going to law school to understand whether there's evidence that the law applies to me is ludicrous. This means either to accept the baseless assertion that it applies or to go through some years of probable indoctrination in order to find the Holy Grail of the Law. And I'm not doing this to brag on other forums how smart I am, thus negating your thesis (among others) that I'm here to troll.

Once again, you misrepresent my post. I did NOT tell you to go to law school; rather, I told you that you can find your evidence (if you truly seek it, which I strongly doubt) in publications which you can find in their bookstores. As for what you call "probable indoctrination" -- the rest of us call it "education".

The bottom line is that your mind is made up; and you will go to any lengths necessary to avoid being confused by the facts. You are, indeed, a troll; and I have yet to see anything in any of your post to change that.

[JamesVincent]

Ill throw my two cents in and be done.

As someone else has pointed out the Constitution was enacted, ratified and signed by the original 13 states and their representatives. By the act of voting for or appointing these representatives and by having them sign the Constitution the states agreed to abide by the law set out in the document. And by further ratifying the Bill of Rights and every amendment set forth the states, now 50, have agreed, through their consent, that these laws apply to them. If you are a citizen of the US the laws apply to you by virtue of existing as a citizen. If you are a citizen of a state of the Republic those same laws apply to you by virtue of that states consent. If you abide here the laws apply to you by being inside the borders of the United States and by being here you agree to abide by these laws. If you gain citizenship here you agree to abide by these laws, Part 14 of the N400 form, application for naturalization, states that you agree to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and agree to serve in the military and bear arms if required and so on.

The proof that law applies to everyone comes from the application of law, not some spiritual mumbo jumbo as you claim. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech yet you will be arrested if you go into a crowded movie theater and yell "fire". If the law did not apply to everyone then there would be no limitations on what you could. There would also be no limitations on what someone else could do. Regardless of what you feel is moral, the law is neither moral nor logical, it is. By being present inside the US you have the obligation of following the laws, the same as if you were present in any other country. And, possibly, being in a foreign country with US citizenship requires you to follow US law and the host countries since some US law applies to US citizens abroad also.

Several well meaning posters have given very definite answers to your questions and you claim that your question has gone unanswered. The truth is that whether you feel the law applies to you is your right. We have the right to feel any way we want. You have the right to question whether you feel a particular law applies to you in a particular situation. Those rights were recognized and granted, in law. That does not give you the right to disobey the law. You can avoid the draft, which is a law, by being a conscientious objector, however it is a law that says you can. An appellate court decision will tell you an interpretation of the law and several decisions have been found that state that a particular law applies to a person in a particular situation. That is their job, to find an answer in law for a problem. I think the part of the Deceleration that states, "These truths are self evident" and "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," would mean that any law passed by that government, with powers granted by the consent of the governed, would be just as good as an answer as can be given. Before you even get to the Constitution the founding fathers recognized that government, and by extension the laws that said government could enact with the consent of the governed, is essential.

So, again, you have the choice. You can either accept that the laws are there and valid and apply to everyone within the borders of the United States. Or you can give a valid reason why they are not, and back it up with an actual event, not your say so. You are not a recognized government to be able to make a treaty that states the laws are not applicable to you, you are not a recognized country that can make its own laws or interpretations of law and you are not a recognized court to rule that a given law is not applicable to you. And, by the way, that is dealing with international law, not strictly US law. Some of the treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, we have been a part of is to decide what the definition of a nation-state is and you don't qualify.

[travis]

@JamesVincent: I get it, the law is axiomatic, no problem!
LE: BTW, if I don't consent, under this provision of the "consent of the governed" it doesn't apply.

[LPC]

I hesitated to say this before, but travis's problem seems to be definitional, because he has an understanding of "law" that is completely different from anyone else's (except perhaps Marc Stevens). Because of that, he is unable to understand that providing evidence that something falls within the commonly understood meaning of the word "law" is not "circular."

The word "law" can be defined in different ways, but my dictionary has as its first definition "a rule established by authority, society, or custom," and that's good enough.

Most of us understand that to be the meaning of "law," so we think we've answered travis's questions when we've provided evidence that a rule exists and that it was established by authority. The fact that he rejects all of the evidence suggests that has a understanding of "law" that is completely different, or has no understanding of the word at all.

Because he is looking to redefine what is meant by "law," all references to the definition of "law" appear to him to be circular. It's as if he has asked for proof that a dog has four legs, and when shown a picture of a dog with four legs rejects the evidence because there's no proof that the animal in the picture really is a dog. He claims that the problem is circularity, but the problem is really definitional. If you define a "dog" as an animal with four legs, then there is no way to "prove" that a dog has four legs because the four legs are part of the definition of what a dog is. Trying to "prove " that a dog has four legs is only possible if you believe that it is possible for the word "dog" to have some meaning that is different from what everyone understands the word to mean.

Similarly, it's not possible to prove that a law "applies" if part of the definition of what makes something a law is that it is in fact applied. As I suggested early on, a law that doesn't apply to anyone isn't really a law at all, a point that was totally incomprehensible to travis because he doesn't understand what I (and everyone else) mean by "law."

[Pottapaug1938]

@JamesVincent: I get it, the law is axiomatic, no problem!

No, you DON'T get it. You have been shown WHERE to get it; so get on with it!

[travis]

@LPC: you're funny. I don't ask you to prove that the law is the law. I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

[wserra]

Instead, his criterion is simply whether the use of force by the government in a particular case is moral, according to his standards of morality

Exactly. Lord travis gets to decide whether a certain law applies to him. To make that decision, he uses standards he makes up. If anyone else (including, for example, a judge) attempts to make the decision, there is "no evidence" to support it. And that's the end of that.

Nice work if you can get it.

Sorry, Dan, but you overanalyze it. The guy is simply a twit.

[JamesVincent]

@LPC: you're funny. I don't ask you to prove that the law is the law. I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

Make it real easy then. Are you a US citizen and/ or abide within the borders of the US?

[travis]

@wserra: If I claim you owe me money, and have lots of employees backing that claim, do you? Can I give myself powers that mere mortals don't have, like taxation? How about if I ask a bunch of friends to grant me that power, in their name? If I can't, where does the authority of the Founding Fathers come from, the law of the land? Meaning morality, or should I ask the soil if it has any law? The feeling is mutual.

[travis]

Make it real easy then. Are you a US citizen and/ or abide within the borders of the US?

So the law applies because of geography. What if I'm not and don't live withing the borders of the US and get payment from an US citizen, who does. Why do I owe IRS money?

[Famspear]

.....The guy is simply a twit.

Widdle Twaviss has never gotten over the fact that when he was a widdle fella, Mommie (or Daddy) made him do stuff he didn't want to do. I suspect Mommie (or Daddy) used to tell widdle Twaviss he had to obey -- because Mommie (or Daddy) said so.

Oh, Mommies and Daddies are sooooo unfair! Major psychological trauma for poor widdle Twaviss!

[travis]

@Famspear: is this when I'm supposed to lose it and insult you so you can ban me without looking like an asshole?

[LPC]

@LPC:
"There are a number of indications that we are not dealing with a rational person"

Yeah, asking for evidence which isn't fallacious is a clear sign of irrationality. I'm not sarcastic, in Legalland there is no such thing, only legal opinion, so you're technically right.

"The criteria for evaluating "evidence" is ad hoc and constantly shifting."

Do you want me to list all the potential logical fallacies you could commit when presenting "evidence"?

No, but it would be interesting if you could point to ONE ACTUAL (not "potential") logical fallacy I have ACTUALLY committed (and not "could commit").

As I recently explained (again), you think that something is "circular" when it's actually just definitional. A "law" is something that is enforced. Evidence that something is enforced is not "circular" because enforcement is part of the definition of what "law" means.

But I'm willing to try to play by your rules and your understanding of "law." So, if you explain what you think a "law" would look like if it applied to you, then I'll find "evidence" for you.

I fully expect that your understanding of "law" will look very much like a unicorn; something that does not exist, has never existed, and never will exist.

And I have to point out that redefining "law" in such a way that "law" does not exist does not mean that the laws (usual meaning) that do exist will not cease to apply to you. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg, and redefining "law" so that the Internal Revenue Code is not a "law" does not mean that the IRC does not still apply to you or that you will not go to jail if you fail to comply with the IRC.

[Quixote]

By staying in the country and reaping the benefits of federal, state and local laws, you have acquiesced on the question of the law applying to you. The evidence that the law applies to you is your continued enjoyment of the benefits of the law.

[LPC]

@LPC: you're funny. I don't ask you to prove that the law is the law. I ask you to prove that what is commonly referred as the law, in the context of the OP: US Constitution, US Code, US Regulations, etc. apply to me, or anyone else who doesn't voluntarily submit to the so called authority of the law.

No you don't.

And now you're veering away from sophistry and towards pathological lying.

[LPC]

Sorry, Dan, but you overanalyze it. The guy is simply a twit.

I was thinking about "sociopath" but was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

He's no longer entitled to that benefit.

[Famspear]

@Famspear: is this when I'm supposed to lose it and insult you so you can ban me without looking like an asshole?

No, this is where you're supposed to remain calm. This is where you're supposed to consider spending some time learning about what psychologists refer to as "transference."

This is where you're supposed to start the process of changing your life for the better.

Good luck.

[LPC]

@Famspear: is this when I'm supposed to lose it and insult you so you can ban me without looking like an asshole?

That's it. He's banned. (Unless someone beats me to it.)

[wserra]

@wserra: If I claim you owe me money, and have lots of employees backing that claim, do you?

A rephrase that will be obvious to everyone but twitvis: A judge says, following whatever process is due under the circumstances, that I owe you money. The order is final. Do I?

I would be careful of your answer if you ever expect to collect from anyone.

[JamesVincent]

Make it real easy then. Are you a US citizen and/ or abide within the borders of the US?

So the law applies because of geography. What if I'm not and don't live withing the borders of the US and get payment from an US citizen, who does. Why do I owe IRS money?

You've accused everyone else of talking in circles. It is a yes or no answer. Are you a US citizen and/ or abide within the borders of the US? And it is political geography, not geography.