Jurisdiction evidence

[Famspear]

Since Lysander Spooner was a lawyer, so an authority in the field of law, can we proceed to looking at the evidence used by the judges to prove they have jurisdiction?

Judges don't need "evidence" to prove they have "jurisdiction."

In American law, Travis, there are questions of law and questions of fact and mixed questions of law and fact. In law, Travis, you use "evidence" to prove facts.

Whether a judge has subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case is not a question of "fact" involving "evidence." It is not a question of "proving" something. It is a question of law.

Example: If an individual is indicted for a federal tax crime, the Federal district judge assigned the case does not have to "prove" to someone else that he has "jurisdiction." Subject matter jurisdiction is a matter of law, not a matter of looking at "evidence" to prove a "fact."

Show me a judge that does that when providing arguments for jurisdiction (if it's not ASSumed from the get go).

Judges do not provide "arguments for jurisdiction" -- at least not in the sense that you're thinking. They don't need to. That's not part of the legal process. Again, you don't seem to understand basic legal concepts. Why are we not surprised?

In the text of a court opinion, a judge will provide an explanation as to why he has subject matter jurisdiction. He is not trying to "prove" that he has jurisdiction.

Famspear, are you trolling in the forum in which you're a moderator?

Don't bulls**t me, kiddo. In addition to learning about the concept of transference, you need to review the concept of projection.

And don't lecture wserra on what the law is. He is an expert on the law. You are not.

I don't trust opinions supported (if that) by baseless assertions.

Nobody cares what you trust or what you don't trust. What the law "is," Travis, is not dependent on what you "trust," what you know, what you believe, what you think, or how you feel. And your feelings about "basis in reality" are irrelevant.

The rest of the world is not here to make you happy, Travis. The rest of the world is not here to persuade you that things are what they are.

We're here to instruct you, not to persuade you.

Grow up, little Travis.

[LPC]

Since Lysander Spooner was a lawyer, so an authority in the field of law,

Wrong. Not every lawyer is an authority in the field of law.

can we proceed to looking at the evidence used by the judges to prove they have jurisdiction?

Gibberish. Judges don't use "evidence" to "prove" jurisdiction. Sometimes the parties have to provide evidence to prove to the judge that the judge has jurisdiction, but the judges don't "prove they have jurisdiction" to anyone.

As far as I know Einstein actually proved the opinions he held, using the scientific method.

As far as I know, Einstein never proved anything to anyone. He was a theoretical physicist, which means he developed theorems based on other scientific theorems or observations, published his theorems, and then left it to others to prove (or disprove) his theorems.

If I'm wrong, then tell me what experiments Einstein performed to prove the special theory of relativity, or the general theory of relativity?

The law is one giant, specialized argument from authority.

Nice try, but this isn't about what the law is or is not.

And we should know that because you say so? Since when are you an authority on the meaning of words?

This thread is about what it's about. You don't get to declare that the words you write don't mean what they actually do mean, or that the rules of logic don't apply to what you write, for the same reason that you don't get to declare that the laws of the United States don't apply to you while you are within the states of the United States.

And this thread is about what law is and what law is not, because a lot of what judges do is declare to whom laws apply, which is part and parcel of deciding disputes about laws. You claim that the decisions of judges are not authority for what laws apply to what persons, but that is exactly the nature of law.

I don't trust opinions supported (if that) by baseless assertions.

Neither do I, which is what I don't trust any of your opinions.

Remember, you have evidence or you don't, it doesn't matter what I believe about that evidence.

Exactly. The laws say that they apply to you, and judicial opinions say that the laws apply to you, and what you believe about those laws and those judicial opinions doesn't matter.

[LPC]

Whether a judge has subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case is not a question of "fact" involving "evidence." It is not a question of "proving" something. It is a question of law.

Sorry, but that's not exactly correct.

In most cases, subject matter jurisdiction is established by the nature of the dispute itself. So, for example, federal courts have a jurisdiction over cases in which the United States is a party, so if the case is a lawsuit against the United States, then federal courts have jurisdiction as a matter of law, without any need for anyone to prove anything.

But there are some kinds of subject matter jurisdiction that can require facts that can be disputed. For example, if a case in federal court is based on diversity jurisdiction, there could be a factual dispute over whether one or more of the parties is a citizen of a particular state, and evidence might be required to prove or disprove the citizenship that is in dispute.

[Famspear]

As far as I know Einstein actually proved the opinions he held, using the scientific method.

As far as I know, Einstein never proved anything to anyone. He was a theoretical physicist, which means he developed theorems based on other scientific theorems or observations, published his theorems, and then left it to others to prove (or disprove) his theorems.

If I'm wrong, then tell me what experiments Einstein performed to prove the special theory of relativity, or the general theory of relativity?

Excellent point. Einstein's science was theoretical and computational science. Others confirmed Einstein's theories by conducting the experiments.

For example, an important aspect of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (promulgated c. 1914-1916) -- that gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of the space-time continuum and that the path of an electromagnetic emission is bent by the gravitational effect of masses of matter -- was confirmed by experiment in the famous observations by Sir Arthur Eddington and his team, conducted in May 1919.

I love this forum.

[LPC]

Show me a judge that does that when providing arguments for jurisdiction (if it's not ASSumed from the get go).

Judges do not provide "arguments for jurisdiction" -- at least not in the sense that you're thinking. They don't need to.

It might be helpful to point that that there is a jurisdictional difference between federal courts and state courts, because all federal courts are courts of limited (or special) jurisdiction, but almost all states have at least one court of *general* jurisdiction.

Because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, federal rules require that there be a statement in the complaint (or other initial pleading) stating the basis of jurisdiction.

In a court of general jurisdiction, a jurisdictional statements is not required, because subject matter jurisdiction actually is "assumed from the get go." (Which is not to say that jurisdiction might not still be disputed, because there may be another statute or rule of law that gives another court exclusive jurisdiction. But jurisdiction has to be affirmatively disputed, and the initial assumption is that a court of general jurisdiction does have jurisdiction without pleading or proving anything.)

[Famspear]

Whether a judge has subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case is not a question of "fact" involving "evidence." It is not a question of "proving" something. It is a question of law.

Sorry, but that's not exactly correct.

In most cases, subject matter jurisdiction is established by the nature of the dispute itself. So, for example, federal courts have a jurisdiction over cases in which the United States is a party, so if the case is a lawsuit against the United States, then federal courts have jurisdiction as a matter of law, without any need for anyone to prove anything.

But there are some kinds of subject matter jurisdiction that can require facts that can be disputed. For example, if a case in federal court is based on diversity jurisdiction, there could be a factual dispute over whether one or more of the parties is a citizen of a particular state, and evidence might be required to prove or disprove the citizenship that is in dispute.

Perhaps I stated my point inartfully.

Assuming that the question of whether the plaintiff lives in New York (and is a citizen of New York) and the question of whether the defendant lives in California (and is a citizen of California) are questions of fact to be decided by considering evidence, I would argue that the question of whether the court has diversity jurisdiction in the case is still a separate question -- a question of law.

In other words, let's assume that the court makes a finding of fact that both parties are actually citizens of New York. Suppose that the plaintiff then argues (frivolously, of course) that when the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of the same state, diversity jurisdiction is present. The court would then decide the separate issue -- of whether diversity jurisdiction is present when both plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the same state -- which is a question of law. (The court would rule that the plaintiff is incorrect as a matter of law.)

Similarly, in a contract dispute, the question of whether a party in a dispute over whether a contract exists made a "mark" on a piece of paper with present intent to authenticate that document is a question of fact.

Assuming that the answer to that question turns out to be "yes" -- that the party made the mark with present intent to authenticate that document -- the question of whether such a mark is a "signature" under the UCC -- is a question of law.

Deciding the question of fact -- whether the party made the mark with present intent to authenticate the document -- is presumably a necessary antecedent to determining the legal issue of whether the "mark" constituted a "signature" under the UCC. But they are still two separate issues.

[Famspear]

By the way, the question of whether the plaintiff lives in New York is, arguably, a question of fact, while the question of whether he is a citizen of New York is arguably a question of law.

Suppose that the court finds, by reference to evidence, that the plaintiff lives in Albany, New York, and that he has no other residences in any other place (so there's no question about arguing over which one of a string of multiple "residences" in various states is his one and only legal "domicile"). This is a finding of fact on a question of fact.

The question of whether he is a citizen of New York is still a separate question -- a question of law.

For example, he could argue (frivolously) that even though he resides in New York and only in New York, he is not a "citizen" of New York.

The court would then rule -- as a matter of law -- that as a resident of New York, he is indeed a citizen of New York.

[Dr. Caligari]

For examples of evidence look at murder trials. Oddly they sometimes deal with evidence from time to time.

I asked you this upthread, and you didn't answer:

Can you give me evidence that it is illegal to murder you?

If you can't, I assume you would have no objection to my cutting your head off with a chainsaw. So I'll wait for your answer. (But not too long, so better find your evidence fast.)

[Judge Roy Bean]

By the way, the question of whether the plaintiff lives in New York is, arguably, a question of fact, while the question of whether he is a citizen of New York is arguably a question of law.

Suppose that the court finds, by reference to evidence, that the plaintiff lives in Albany, New York, and that he has no other residences in any other place (so there's no question about arguing over which one of a string of multiple "residences" in various states is his one and only legal "domicile"). This is a finding of fact on a question of fact.

The question of whether he is a citizen of New York is still a separate question -- a question of law.

For example, he could argue (frivolously) that even though he resides in New York and only in New York, he is not a "citizen" of New York.

The court would then rule -- as a matter of law -- that as a resident of New York, he is indeed a citizen of New York.

This is an issue that may creep into jurisprudence in the same manner "marriage" recognition is being toyed with.

Consider the viability of a couple who could simply decide they have no domicile. Assume they live in a motor home. Given today's (and evolving) technology, might the courts be faced with deciding if there is a requirement that a person have a residence in a state in order to be a citizen of that state?

[Burnaby49]

In Canada, at least for tax purposes, you are a resident of whichever province you are physically located. While having a domicile might be personally convenient it is irrelevant for determining residence. It doesn't matter if you own a mansion or sleep under a bridge.

[LPC]

For examples of evidence look at murder trials. Oddly they sometimes deal with evidence from time to time.

Yes, "evidence" is relevant to murder trials.

Although I can't think of any murder trial in recent memory in which evidence needed to be admitted that the laws of murder "applied" to the defendant. (Which is, after all, the subject of this thread.)

Can you cite to any examples of any such trials? Or were you just (what is the expression?) "blowing smoke out your ass"?

[LaVidaRoja]

Consider the viability of a couple who could simply decide they have no domicile. Assume they live in a motor home. Given today's (and evolving) technology, might the courts be faced with deciding if there is a requirement that a person have a residence in a state in order to be a citizen of that state?

The Tax Court often addresses the issue of a "Tax Home" for a person who is (usually) claiming temporary living expenses. At this time, I believe that the address you use on your tax return (even if electronic filed with the refund direct-deposited into an on-line bank) would be initially considered your "residence" Other facts the Tax Court looks at are where you are registered to vote, where your Driver's license and insurance state you reside, and,of course, where you receive snail-mail. But with the increase in technology, this may become a very real issue. Didn't Snipes try to claim that the Court in Florida lacked jurisdiction because he was really a resident of New York?

[Burnaby49]

Consider the viability of a couple who could simply decide they have no domicile. Assume they live in a motor home. Given today's (and evolving) technology, might the courts be faced with deciding if there is a requirement that a person have a residence in a state in order to be a citizen of that state?

The Tax Court often addresses the issue of a "Tax Home" for a person who is (usually) claiming temporary living expenses. At this time, I believe that the address you use on your tax return (even if electronic filed with the refund direct-deposited into an on-line bank) would be initially considered your "residence" Other facts the Tax Court looks at are where you are registered to vote, where your Driver's license and insurance state you reside, and,of course, where you receive snail-mail. But with the increase in technology, this may become a very real issue. Didn't Snipes try to claim that the Court in Florida lacked jurisdiction because he was really a resident of New York?

We get a lot of these in Canada where Canadians claim to be non-resident so they don't have to pay tax (we don't have a world-wide income tax like you do, only Canadian residents are taxed). As you point out they are fact driven. A lot of airline pilots pull this one because, even if they fly in Canada, they can claim they dead-head commute from somewhere else, usually a tax-haven country. Very fact driven.

We get some real preposterous claims. One guy I was involved with at a Tax Court trial had a wife and house here (house in wife's name) and a job. All of the hallmarks you mentioned pointed to Canada but he swore he lived in the US and commuted although he had no proof of any kind to support it. Evidence of border crossings, none. Residences in the states? "I slept under bridges" (really, that was what he testified), or stayed with friends whose names he had forgotten. It went on and on. At one point he claimed he couldn't prove anything because he had worked at a super-secret US base and he would be killed if he identified it. For some reason the judge found him lacking in credibility.

[wserra]

Didn't Snipes try to claim that the Court in Florida lacked jurisdiction because he was really a resident of New York?

Venue, actually.

As others have written above, every now and then a court will hold a hearing as to jurisdiction. In those cases, jurisdiction is in part a question of fact. It doesn't (and shouldn't) happen very often. As far as I can recall, the only times it has happened in the literally thousands of prosecutions in which I have been involved have been in federal crimes with an interstate commerce element, such as Hobbs Act (extortion/robbery) prosecutions. At that, courts almost always find that jurisdiction exists, because the definition of "interstate commerce" is so broad. Only in those rare cases is evidence of jurisdiction ever necessary. Venue is a different issue.

As Dan (I think) wrote, even those rare cases exist only in courts of limited jurisdiction, specifically the USDCs. In a state court of general jurisdiction - every state has one, although they call them different things - the only jurisdictional issue is whether a defendant committed an element of the charged crime in the state, an issue that's almost always trivial. [Insert stupid paytriot evasion "But what does 'the state' mean?" here.] In those cases, the idea of requiring evidence to prove jurisdiction is just more Stevens nonsense.

[notorial dissent]

And Travis has yet to respond to my question of what he considers "evidence" to be, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that he does not have an answer to his own question. Time to cue the crickets.

[LPC]

And Travis has yet to respond to my question of what he considers "evidence" to be, which leads me to the inescapable conclusion that he does not have an answer to his own question.

Like most tax deniers, travis already has an answer. The issue is whether he has an intelligible question to put in front of the answer.

[wserra]

"No evidence of jurisdiction" and "no evidence that the law applies to me" does seem to be Stevens' bullshit du jour. Most of his recent blog entries (such as this one from yesterday) make a point of relating conversations in which various authorities have told him to go fly a kite when he asks them for such "evidence".

Hey, Marc, with all those flying kites to choose from, surely you have one verifiable win on this issue. I mean (from recent blogs) you've been blown off by Arizona, Canada, Washington, New York, the IRS (among others) - you must have challenged just one of them and won.

Haven't you?

[notorial dissent]

Personally, I would say that having your sorry ass tossed in jail for contempt, or equally tossed out of the court for no standing and roundly laughed at, would be more than adequate "evidence of jurisdiction" and "evidence that the law applies to me", but then that would imply that the party in question, Marvelous Marc in instant case, had some pretense at sense, which he and his adherents don't. Stevens just continues to beat some portion of the anatomy of the same dead horse to no consequence, except unintended humor, and Twevor continues to avoid the issue and argue himself in circles, thus proving himself to be just one more unimaginative and unintelligent troll.

[AndyK]

Travis stated earlier that he has never seen any "evidence" that the Constitution (and by derivation, all the laws of this land) applies to him.

Given that he is basing all of his entire (alleged) thought process on this axiom, there is nothing we could show which would divert him from his path.

Other followers of this thread might not be quite so fixated and might actually learn something.

[JamesVincent]

For examples of evidence look at murder trials. Oddly they sometimes deal with evidence from time to time.

Yes, "evidence" is relevant to murder trials.

Although I can't think of any murder trial in recent memory in which evidence needed to be admitted that the laws of murder "applied" to the defendant. (Which is, after all, the subject of this thread.)

Can you cite to any examples of any such trials? Or were you just (what is the expression?) "blowing smoke out your ass"?

Evidence is needed to determine whether a defendant is guilty of a crime, and to determine whether a defendant should be charged with murder or manslaughter or whether circumstances exist for the death penalty in states that allow it. No evidence is needed to prove that the law of murder applies or that murder is a crime in and of itself. Only whether they are guilty of it.