Jurisdiction evidence

[travis]

I've posted earlier in a thread related to Larken Rose (from whom I've learned of this forum). I've also found some references from Marc Stevens. Since I don't want to derail an old thread, I've created this one. As I understand from

Some of us actively work against the gov't in that as tax preparers, accountants, financial advisers, and lawyers we work actively against the gov't getting any more money than is legally due them, or in defending people who have gotten crosswise with the gov't in some fashion or other. There are also many of us who have nothing to do with any of that. And we don't discuss the Illuminati contingent as they don't exist, officially, just ask Deep Knight, he'll happily deny anything.

the above quote, some members of the forum have a financial interest in preserving the status quo, while others, probably, are mesmerized by the whole Social Contract legend. What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?

[LPC]

What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?

You want "evidence" that there is such a thing as "law"?

Or, putting it somewhat differently: What evidence do you rely upon that one plus one equals two?

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm going to further and say that you don't have any evidence that these things DON'T apply to everyone. People like Larken Rose have tried to provide that evidence; but all they ever offer us is a word salad consisting of out-of-context quotes from court opinions, laws, regulations, tax forms and the like. Not once have they ever provided us with ONE instance where they won their cases on their merits, after all appellate review is complete. Any victories which they proclaim to us are either not final, or occur in cases where the government decides that further prosecution is not cost-effective and declines to pursue the matter further.

[notorial dissent]

the above quote, some members of the forum have a financial interest in preserving the status quo, while others, probably, are mesmerized by the whole Social Contract legend. What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?

I'm trying to find some way of politely answering this, although I really don't know why.

You suffer either from selective reading, or don't read at all, and your presumptions speak a great deal more about you than they do about the group here. Your comments indicate you are/were looking for an answer you didn't/won't get here, simply and precisely because the answer you want is specious and nonsense of the silliest kind. You speak of Barkin' Larkin, who is nothing if not a prime candidate and poster child for the silly theories that don't work candidacy. Prattlin' Pete Henderson is another contender, both espousing what you are grasping at, and both are losers of the first magnitude and ex-jail birds to prove it. You ask for evidence, I would suggest the evidence of mine own eyes, and experience, and reality are more than sufficient to tell me what is and isn't caca.

[travis]

To all: I'm not here to defend Larken Rose or Marc Stevens. They can do better themselves.

@LPC: No, evidence that it applies to anyone.

@Pottapaug1938: The burden of proof rests on those making the claim that the law applies. Pretending to prove that without actually doing it doesn't change the fact that no evidence was presented.

@notorial dissent: argument from authority + ad hominem, nice. Do you have any evidence?

[Pottapaug1938]

To all: I'm not here to defend Larken Rose or Marc Stevens. They can do better themselves.

@Pottapaug1938: The burden of proof rests on those making the claim that the law applies. Pretending to prove that without actually doing it doesn't change the fact that no evidence was presented.

Sure, I have evidence -- far too much to present here; and I have no time to spend regurgitating it all for you. However, you can easily find it yourself, by researching appellate court cases. There, you will find countless cases which say that all of your cited things apply to us; or you can peruse past Quatloos threads for instances of that proof. That's what LPC means when he asks if you've heard about the "law".

But then, I'm guessing that you'll find a way to disbelieve everything that you read.

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: Legal opinion is not evidence, just a circular argument (logical fallacy).

[wserra]

To all: I'm not here to defend Larken Rose or Marc Stevens. They can do better themselves.

Actually - at least in Stevens' case - he can't. See here and here. When folks won't play his silly "gotcha" 20 questions, he takes his toys and stomps off. We also go through two cases he claimed as victories - the only two he identified - but in which his "clients" actually got sliced and diced. Having federal courts call your stuff "frivolous" and "sophistry", and sanctioning you $6000, is not exactly a victory. Unless you're Stevens, of course.

As to your question:

What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?

Yes, I recognize that as Stevens' nonsense. Evidence consists of facts; the application of law is a legal conclusion. You don't rely on facts to support a legal conclusion, you rely on law. If you are in the United States, the Constitution and the USC apply to you unless you hold diplomatic status. Why? Because that's the law.

Now why don't you ask for "evidence" that, if you intentionally kill someone, you commit a homicide?

[Cpt Banjo]

@Pottapaug1938: Legal opinion is not evidence, just a circular argument (logical fallacy).

It isn't a logical fallacy if you accept the concept of law to begin with, as suggested by your original post's use of the legal term "jurisdiction" and its query about how the laws "apply" to anyone.

If, as I suspect, you're coming from an anarchist position where you don't accept the notions of authority and law, cut the B.S. and have the intellectual honesty to say what you mean instead of playing games.

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: Legal opinion is not evidence, just a circular argument (logical fallacy).

You're playing word games. A decision of an appellate court is an "opinion"; but it is a definitive statement of what the law is, such that anyone within the jurisdiction of the Court can rely upon it as being authoritiative. It carried definitive legal weight. Until it is modified by subsequent laws or opinions, or overturned on further appeal, it is irrefutable evidence of what the law is.

A "legal opinion" by an individual, speaking as such and not as an appellate justice, is just that: an opinion in the context which you describe. It carries no intrinsic legal weight. However, it is increasingly clear that you are trying to muddy the legal waters here by deliberately confusing the two. That may work on tax denier forums; but it won't work here.

[Famspear]

a newbie wrote:

....some members of the forum have a financial interest in preserving the status quo....

So what?

People who want to do away with federal income taxes have a financial interest in changing the status quo.

The regulars at this forum are here to expose scams. What we report is what the law is. Having a "financial interest" in "preserving the status quo" does not change the law.

People like Larken Rose and Charles Thomas Clayton and Irwin Schiff and Peter Hendrickson are convicted criminals who have a "financial interest" in not paying federal income taxes.

[AndyK]

Travis: Let's start out with a few simple questions so we can establish a basis for further discussion.

All of the following can be answered YES or NO. No explication is necessary.

1 - Is the United States of America an independant, sovereign nation?

2 - Did repersentatives from each of the first thirteen states (original British colonies) adopt a Constitution following the war for independence?

3 - Does that constitution provide for and establish a central government composed of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches?

4 - Is that constitution, as amended according to its own rules and procedures, remain in effect?

5 - Are the current (and all previous) President, Senators, and Representatives duly elected and installed in their respective offices according to the procedures (as amended) defined in the Constitution?

While we await your responses, shall we listen to the music of the crickets?

[LPC]

@LPC: No, evidence that it applies to anyone.

That was my point. If a statute is enacted that doesn't apply to anyone, it's not really much of a "law," now is it?

This country has been operating under a written consititution for the last 200+ years, and you want "evidence" that it "applies to anyone." You're either willfully ignorant, willfully obtuse, or trolling, and none of those conditions is going to be changed by any response any of us can give.

[travis]

To all: I'm not here to defend Larken Rose or Marc Stevens. They can do better themselves.

Actually - at least in Stevens' case - he can't. See here and here. When folks won't play his silly "gotcha" 20 questions, he takes his toys and stomps off. We also go through two cases he claimed as victories - the only two he identified - but in which his "clients" actually got sliced and diced. Having federal courts call your stuff "frivolous" and "sophistry", and sanctioning you $6000, is not exactly a victory. Unless you're Stevens, of course.

If what you're saying is true it invalidates only his pragmatic view of the legal process, which is to minimize losses.

As to your question:

What evidence do you rely upon that the US Constitution, Code and Regulations apply to anyone, past, present and future?

Yes, I recognize that as Stevens' nonsense. Evidence consists of facts; the application of law is a legal conclusion. You don't rely on facts to support a legal conclusion, you rely on law. If you are in the United States, the Constitution and the USC apply to you unless you hold diplomatic status. Why? Because that's the law.

Now why don't you ask for "evidence" that, if you intentionally kill someone, you commit a homicide?

Saying that the law applies because the law says it applies is circular logic. I'm asking for logical evidence, not legal evidence. Legalese is full of hijacked terms. I don't understand your reference to homicide. Are you making an utilitarian argument, that without the concept of centralized law there would be chaos?

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: Legal opinion is not evidence, just a circular argument (logical fallacy).

It isn't a logical fallacy if you accept the concept of law to begin with, as suggested by your original post's use of the legal term "jurisdiction" and its query about how the laws "apply" to anyone.

If, as I suspect, you're coming from an anarchist position where you don't accept the notions of authority and law, cut the B.S. and have the intellectual honesty to say what you mean instead of playing games.

I don't accept the notion of law as having moral merit. I acknowledge that it's a bad idea to ignore it, but that's not evidence it applies unless "might makes right". Is that your argument? My political views have no bearing on what logical evidence you can present to support the assertion that the law generally applies.

[travis]

a newbie wrote:

....some members of the forum have a financial interest in preserving the status quo....

So what?

People who want to do away with federal income taxes have a financial interest in changing the status quo.

The regulars at this forum are here to expose scams. What we report is what the law is. Having a "financial interest" in "preserving the status quo" does not change the law.

People like Larken Rose and Charles Thomas Clayton and Irwin Schiff and Peter Hendrickson are convicted criminals who have a "financial interest" in not paying federal income taxes.

Having a financial interest in this matter makes people highly subjective. Look at the judges/prosecutors behavior for examples. Attorneys as well are bound by their membership to various Bar Associations which leads to self censorship, at the least.

People that want to do away with income taxes are irrelevant since it's not their burden to prove that the law doesn't apply to them.

[travis]

Travis: Let's start out with a few simple questions so we can establish a basis for further discussion.

All of the following can be answered YES or NO. No explication is necessary.

1 - Is the United States of America an independant, sovereign nation?

2 - Did repersentatives from each of the first thirteen states (original British colonies) adopt a Constitution following the war for independence?

3 - Does that constitution provide for and establish a central government composed of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches?

4 - Is that constitution, as amended according to its own rules and procedures, remain in effect?

5 - Are the current (and all previous) President, Senators, and Representatives duly elected and installed in their respective offices according to the procedures (as amended) defined in the Constitution?

While we await your responses, shall we listen to the music of the crickets?

1. I assume so, if you don't find the various international bodies in which the US is a member or various foreign lobbies that influence the government relevant.
2. I assume so.
3. idem
4. idem
5. Again, I assume so, unless you find the various voting frauds relevant.

Now my question: what relevance has all the above? Do you claim that a Social Contract was created?

[travis]

@LPC: No, evidence that it applies to anyone.

That was my point. If a statute is enacted that doesn't apply to anyone, it's not really much of a "law," now is it?

This country has been operating under a written consititution for the last 200+ years, and you want "evidence" that it "applies to anyone." You're either willfully ignorant, willfully obtuse, or trolling, and none of those conditions is going to be changed by any response any of us can give.

Let me give you an example to understand my position better: is the mafia's rules law for it's victims? If I go over the arguments in favor of the applicability of the law, in the context of organized crime, is there a difference?

[wserra]

Attorneys as well are bound by their membership to various Bar Associations which leads to self censorship, at the least.

While I am a member of a couple of bar associations, I don't have to be. I could practice law in New York without being a member of a single bar association, and many lawyers here do exactly that - as did I, at the beginning of my career.

If what you're saying is true it invalidates only his [Stevens'] pragmatic view of the legal process, which is to minimize losses.

Oh. So Marc Edwards (the name of Stevens' "client" above) refusing to comply with an IRS summons, paying Stevens to fight it, spending the time and money it takes to go to court, losing, being sanctioned $6000, then complying with the IRS summons is "minimizing losses"? A typical Stevens definition.

Do you wonder why you are being met largely with derision? It's because you say something dumb or outright false in every sentence. Suggestion: start with a good high-school level civics class. No one here has the time to provide it.

[LPC]

Saying that the law applies because the law says it applies is circular logic.

No, it's definitional.

You want "evidence" that laws apply to "anyone," and yet you are rejecting all examples of laws being applied to anyone.

It's like demanding "evidence" of gravity, but rejecting examples of things falling.

If the laws of the United States did not apply to Larken Rose, then why did he go to prison for violating those laws?

I don't accept the notion of law as having moral merit.

Exactly my point. You are asking for a moral justification for law, while simultaneously rejecting the idea that law can ever have a moral justification.