Jurisdiction evidence

[Pottapaug1938]

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?

If you bothered to read my earlier posts, you will see that I refer you to the huge body of appellate court decisions in this country which say that our laws do apply to everyone unless otherwise specified. Even if I had the time or inclination to post even a fraction of the available decisions, I would soon clog this forum past the point of usability. Fortunately, you can peruse past and present threads to see citations from court opinions, and excerpts from them, which contain logical evidence and will satisfy any rational reader.

However, whether or not I can classify you within the scope of those last three words is dubious at best. You make self-serving statements like "legalese is full of hijacked terms"; yet you fail to provide us with ONE example which has withstood court challenges. You likewise make remarks about judges/prosecutors and lawyers, ignoring the comments on this and other threads about how lawyers have taken on the government, in cases involving income taxation, AND WON.

And then, to claim that "(p)eople 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" is absurd on its face. If the current state of the law asserts that the law does indeed apply to them, the burden of proving otherwise IS INDEED on those people to prove otherwise. On top of that, if you don't believe that these tax deniers have a financial interest in maximizing their net worth by showing that they do not have to pay income taxes, I've got some green cheese, straight from the moon, to sell you.

As if I needed further proof of your ignorance, you then supply is with nonsense about the
rules of the Mafia. You have got to be the only person I've ever encountered who asserts that the Mafia operates under a claim of authority from the law. And yes -- there IS a "difference". No one has ever published a compendium of appellate court decisions by a mafia court and ever claimed that it had the force of law.

You're no different from the other drive-by trolls we see popping up here from time to time. Your posts have been almost completely fact and logic-free. If you want to change the opinions of anyone here, you'll have to do a trillion times better than that.

[mpo]

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.

At least Ali G brought some humor to this type of questioning--What is legal? What is illegal? What is barely legal?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_a1gnxbrKw

[LPC]

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?

Yes, there's a difference.

And no, I'm not going to waste my time explaining the difference. If you don't already understand the difference, my explaining it won't help you.

[Prof]

@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?

If you do not understand the difference between countries like the US, GP, France, Canada, etc., and either the Mafia or a government which operates like an organized criminal syndicate, such as North Korea, you are certainly not very perceptive.

For example, the liberal democracies do not practice summary execution, disapprove of torture when it occurs, and offer those who offend the law the opportunity for a fair trial.

Of course, all exercise legal but coercive means to collect taxes and otherwise enforce the laws promulgated by elected assemblies on the state and federal level.

And, if a citizen or resident of those countries wishes to refuse to participate in the obligations of a citizen, which include paying taxes for the support of governments, the citizen is free to leave the country and seek residence in some other country more to his liking (assuming that the new country will accept that person).

By the way, in exchange, the governments of those countries provide relative stability, relative freedom from want, relative freedom from crime, decent roads, decent schools, and a military to protect from foreign invasions by thug governments like N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Rome, or whatever comes along.

If you don't like what the government spends your taxes on, you are free to join the TEA PARTY and try to make changes -- or, in the US, move from a high tax state like Mass. to a relatively low tax state like SC.

To put this on a simplistic level, if you don't pay your taxes, in the US you get fined, your assets may be seized, you may even, in some cases where fraud is involved, go to jail, with, at all times, recourse to courts, lawyers, and other defenses. If you don't pay the Mafia, there is a good chance of serious bodily injury, death, injury or murder of family, and the like.

[Prof]

Unlike LPC, who is far more sensible than I am, I will try to explain the difference between the Mafia and a legitimate government:

@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?

If you do not understand the difference between countries like the US, GP, France, Canada, etc., and either the Mafia or a government which operates like an organized criminal syndicate, such as North Korea, you are certainly not very perceptive.

For example, the liberal democracies do not practice summary execution, disapprove of torture when it occurs, and offer those who offend the law the opportunity for a fair trial.

Of course, all exercise legal but coercive means to collect taxes and otherwise enforce the laws promulgated by elected assemblies on the state and federal level.

And, if a citizen or resident of those countries wishes to refuse to participate in the obligations of a citizen, which include paying taxes for the support of governments, the citizen is free to leave the country and seek residence in some other country more to his liking (assuming that the new country will accept that person).

By the way, in exchange, the governments of those countries provide relative stability, relative freedom from want, relative freedom from crime, decent roads, decent schools, and a military to protect from foreign invasions by thug governments like N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Rome, or whatever comes along.

If you don't like what the government spends your taxes on, you are free to join the TEA PARTY and try to make changes -- or, in the US, move from a high tax state like Mass. to a relatively low tax state like SC.

To put this on a simplistic level, if you don't pay your taxes, in the US you get fined, your assets may be seized, you may even, in some cases where fraud is involved, go to jail, with, at all times, recourse to courts, lawyers, and other defenses. If you don't pay the Mafia, there is a good chance of serious bodily injury, death, injury or murder of family, and the like.

[travis]

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.

I didn't know that. What happens if you hold a prosecutor to the burden of proof and don't accept non-responses? What happens if the judge give a hand to the prosecutor? Will you accept that or challenge him/them?

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.

Maybe my English is extremely poor but what I said was that Stevens claims that he tries to minimize losses for his clients. If he achieves the opposite it only invalidates this point of his, not any moral beliefs he may have.

Will I find logical evidence that the US laws apply to someone living in the continental US (territory, not body politic) in a civics class? Do you have a quick summary to save the poor me from the ordeal?

[travis]

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.

Might makes right? Yes or no? I'm not assuming that breaking the law has desirable consequences, not if your a peasant.

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: so it's ok to post a wall of text, but to present evidence is too much for you. If you don't have evidence, it's ok, say so and admit it's all based on faith, a religion. I have nothing against religious people, not unless they're immoral.

[Cpt Banjo]

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.

So you aren't arguing the law, you're arguing political philosophy. More specifically, you question the moral characteristics of law.

The notion of law isn't equivalent to "might makes right". Although enforcement of the law is based upon the threat or use of force, the law itself is the legitimate use of force, where the process of legitimation arises out of the particular political system in question. If "might makes right" were the sole criterion, I could go beat up my (presumably much smaller) neighbor to get him to stop playing his TV too loudly, but I wouldn't be operating within the law.

But even the legitimized use of force isn't necessarily moral, as our country's history with slavery shows. But it can be. Do you see no moral merit in using the legal system to try and punish the scumbag(s) behind the Boston Marathon bombings?

[travis]

If you do not understand the difference between countries like the US, GP, France, Canada, etc., and either the Mafia or a government which operates like an organized criminal syndicate, such as North Korea, you are certainly not very perceptive.

For example, the liberal democracies do not practice summary execution, disapprove of torture when it occurs, and offer those who offend the law the opportunity for a fair trial.

Of course, all exercise legal but coercive means to collect taxes and otherwise enforce the laws promulgated by elected assemblies on the state and federal level.

And, if a citizen or resident of those countries wishes to refuse to participate in the obligations of a citizen, which include paying taxes for the support of governments, the citizen is free to leave the country and seek residence in some other country more to his liking (assuming that the new country will accept that person).

By the way, in exchange, the governments of those countries provide relative stability, relative freedom from want, relative freedom from crime, decent roads, decent schools, and a military to protect from foreign invasions by thug governments like N. Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Rome, or whatever comes along.

If you don't like what the government spends your taxes on, you are free to join the TEA PARTY and try to make changes -- or, in the US, move from a high tax state like Mass. to a relatively low tax state like SC.

To put this on a simplistic level, if you don't pay your taxes, in the US you get fined, your assets may be seized, you may even, in some cases where fraud is involved, go to jail, with, at all times, recourse to courts, lawyers, and other defenses. If you don't pay the Mafia, there is a good chance of serious bodily injury, death, injury or murder of family, and the like.

To summarize:
1. mafia has no marketing/public relations/propaganda. Modus operandi is basically the same, considering the first part.
2. the citizen is free to leave if he doesn't like the law. Why does he have to leave, and where, to another jurisdiction, the desert, the ocean?
3. the basic utilitarian argument, that without government you get a society ruled by organized crime. It's not necessarily so, and governments don't create wealth of any kind so praising them for that is unrealistic.

[Famspear]

travis wrote:

Saying that the law applies because the law says it applies is circular logic. I'm asking for logical evidence, not legal evidence.

You're not entitled to receive "logical evidence." The rest of the world is not here to persuade you that the law applies to you. Specifically, the regulars on this forum are not here to persuade you that the law applies to you. We're here to teach you, not to persuade you. Whether you accept the teaching is of no moment.

Legalese is full of hijacked terms.

No, "legalese" is not full of "hijacked terms". Legalese is full of terms that mean different things in different contexts. In this regard, the language of law – legalese -- is no different from language in general.

Many, many words have multiple meanings – multiple senses. Some meanings are considered denotative; others are considered connotative. In technical fields such as law, accounting, physics, chemistry and so on, terms that have common, familiar meanings in ordinary life may have special, technical meanings. This is not "hijacking" a term. This is ordinary, regular old real life.

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.

No, having a financial interest in this "matter" – by which I assume you mean law or the legal system – does not make people "highly subjective".

No, your comment about judges and prosecutors is nonsense. No, attorneys are not "bound" by their "membership" to various "Bar Associations," and membership in a bar association does not lead to "censorship." One misconception among people like you, Travis, is that the "bar association" somehow controls or influences what its members believe, or say, or don't say. You are completely wrong. Let me give you an example of how things really work.

Under the Texas Government Code (a set of statutes enacted by the Texas Legislature), the state bar association (generally called the "State Bar of Texas") is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judiciary. Although the State Bar's web site has a "dot com" URL, the State Bar is a governmental entity. Its members -- called attorneys at law -- are OFFICERS (but not necessarily employees) of the State of Texas. Specifically, a person licensed as an "attorney and counselor at law" (that's what the actual, physical license on the wall in my office says) is an officer of the court (that is, of each state court) in Texas. In this regard -- to be clear -- being an "officer" and being an "employee" are not the same thing.

States such as Texas are said to have an "integrated" or "mandatory" bar. Generally (with some exceptions not material to this discussion), this means that membership in the State Bar of Texas is required in order for a person to legally practice law in Texas. But the State Bar of Texas has absolutely no authority to revoke a member's license to practice. Indeed, the license to practice is not issued by the State Bar of Texas; the license is issued by the Texas Supreme Court. The license on my wall was signed by the Clerk of the Texas Supreme Court, not by an officer of the State Bar of Texas.

Under the Texas statute, disbarment can be done only by a Texas court – not by the State Bar. Also, prior to disbarment, a separate agency of the state (not the State Bar) investigates grievances against Texas attorneys. The process of disbarment is not controlled by the State Bar.

Under the law, the Supreme Court of Texas exercises administrative control over the State Bar. Under the statute:

Rules governing the admission to the practice of law are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court. The officers and directors of the state bar do not have authority to approve or disapprove of any rule governing admissions to the practice of law or to regulate or administer those admissions standards.

--See Tex. Gov't Code sec. 81.061.

The idea that the State Bar of Texas somehow controls what Texas attorneys say or believe about what the law is, and that the Supreme Court (or the State Bar) somehow thereby "censor" Texas attorneys is idiotic.

As noted earlier in this thread, many states have what are known as "voluntary" bar associations. That means that in those states, you don't have to be a member of the bar association in order to legally practice law in that state.

The American Bar Association (ABA) would be an example of a national bar association. It is also a voluntary organization. Indeed, most attorneys in the United States are NOT members of the ABA.

The idea that bar associations – either the mandatory ones or the voluntary ones – somehow "censor" the expressions of their members is laughable.

Travis, you don't know what you're talking about.

[travis]

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.

So you aren't arguing the law, you're arguing political philosophy. More specifically, you question the moral characteristics of law.

The notion of law isn't equivalent to "might makes right". Although enforcement of the law is based upon the threat or use of force, the law itself is the legitimate use of force, where the process of legitimation arises out of the particular political system in question. If "might makes right" were the sole criterion, I could go beat up my (presumably much smaller) neighbor to get him to stop playing his TV too loudly, but I wouldn't be operating within the law.

But even the legitimized use of force isn't necessarily moral, as our country's history with slavery shows. But it can be. Do you see no moral merit in using the legal system to try and punish the scumbag(s) behind the Boston Marathon bombings?

If someone would have bothered to post some logical evidence that the law applies, this would have been a very short thread. I'm not here to convert anyone, just to check whether such a proof exists.

The legitimate part is defined in the law itself, which is circular. If democracy, in it's many forms, defines what is legitimate, than lynching is perfectly legitimate.

The Boston Marathon bombings are a sensitive subject, prone to emotional responses. The law didn't serve as a deterrent and I doubt it will be able to punish those responsible. Regardless, we have to subject ourselves to numerous "smaller evils" in order to receive protection from such events (one poster even made that claim regarding N. Korea). Obviously it doesn't work. There were/are numerous legal systems, entirely based on morality, in decentralized societies, which dealt with such breaches of morality with restitution, retribution, or a combination of both. Justice is not a modern invention.

[Famspear]

If someone would have bothered to post some logical evidence that the law applies, this would have been a very short thread. I'm not here to convert anyone, just to check whether such a proof exists.

The fact that say you are looking for "proof" that "the law applies" shows that you're not serious, or that you don't really understand how to study the subject of law.

The legitimate part is defined in the law itself, which is circular. If democracy, in it's many forms, defines what is legitimate, than lynching is perfectly legitimate.

That's gibberish.

[travis]

travis wrote:

Saying that the law applies because the law says it applies is circular logic. I'm asking for logical evidence, not legal evidence.

You're not entitled to receive "logical evidence." The rest of the world is not here to persuade you that the law applies to you. Specifically, the regulars on this forum are not here to persuade you that the law applies to you. We're here to teach you, not to persuade you. Whether you accept the teaching is of no moment.

I didn't claim I was. If you don't have evidence, no problem, say so.

Legalese is full of hijacked terms.

No, "legalese" is not full of "hijacked terms". Legalese is full of terms that mean different things in different contexts. In this regard, the language of law – legalese -- is no different from language in general.

Many, many words have multiple meanings – multiple senses. Some meanings are considered denotative; others are considered connotative. In technical fields such as law, accounting, physics, chemistry and so on, terms that have common, familiar meanings in ordinary life may have special, technical meanings. This is not "hijacking" a term. This is ordinary, regular old real life.

Just an example, for firearm:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

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.

No, having a financial interest in this "matter" – by which I assume you mean law or the legal system – does not make people "highly subjective".

No, your comment about judges and prosecutors is nonsense. No, attorneys are not "bound" by their "membership" to various "Bar Associations," and membership in a bar association does not lead to "censorship." One misconception among people like you, Travis, is that the "bar association" somehow controls or influences what its members believe, or say, or don't say. You are completely wrong. Let me give you an example of how things really work.

Under the Texas Government Code (a set of statutes enacted by the Texas Legislature), the state bar association (generally called the "State Bar of Texas") is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the judiciary. Although the State Bar's web site has a "dot com" URL, the State Bar is a governmental entity. Its members -- called attorneys at law -- are OFFICERS (but not necessarily employees) of the State of Texas. Specifically, a person licensed as an "attorney and counselor at law" (that's what the actual, physical license on the wall in my office says) is an officer of the court (that is, of each state court) in Texas. In this regard -- to be clear -- being an "officer" and being an "employee" are not the same thing.

States such as Texas are said to have an "integrated" or "mandatory" bar. Generally (with some exceptions not material to this discussion), this means that membership in the State Bar of Texas is required in order for a person to legally practice law in Texas. But the State Bar of Texas has absolutely no authority to revoke a member's license to practice. Indeed, the license to practice is not issued by the State Bar of Texas; the license is issued by the Texas Supreme Court. The license on my wall was signed by the Clerk of the Texas Supreme Court, not by an officer of the State Bar of Texas.

Under the Texas statute, disbarment can be done only by a Texas court – not by the State Bar. Also, prior to disbarment, a separate agency of the state (not the State Bar) investigates grievances against Texas attorneys. The process of disbarment is not controlled by the State Bar.

Under the law, the Supreme Court of Texas exercises administrative control over the State Bar. Under the statute:

Rules governing the admission to the practice of law are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court. The officers and directors of the state bar do not have authority to approve or disapprove of any rule governing admissions to the practice of law or to regulate or administer those admissions standards.

--See Tex. Gov't Code sec. 81.061.

The idea that the State Bar of Texas somehow controls what Texas attorneys say or believe about what the law is, and that the Supreme Court (or the State Bar) somehow thereby "censor" Texas attorneys is idiotic.

As noted earlier in this thread, many states have what are known as "voluntary" bar associations. That means that in those states, you don't have to be a member of the bar association in order to legally practice law in that state.

The American Bar Association (ABA) would be an example of a national bar association. It is also a voluntary organization. Indeed, most attorneys in the United States are NOT members of the ABA.

The idea that bar associations – either the mandatory ones or the voluntary ones – somehow "censor" the expressions of their members is laughable.

Travis, you don't know what you're talking about.

I've retracted the part about the compulsory membership in a Bar earlier in the thread. Considering that amendments in the US Constitution are routinely breached with impunity, having a license revoked is a walk in a park. Who are you going to turn to, the people that want you out of the business?

You've missed the part about self censorship, the best there is.

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: so it's ok to post a wall of text, but to present evidence is too much for you. If you don't have evidence, it's ok, say so and admit it's all based on faith, a religion. I have nothing against religious people, not unless they're immoral.

Travis, you are a moron. I have told you, twice, that there is plenty of evidence to support my position, but that there is farr to much of it to present here. I have also told you that you can peruse past and present threads to find examples of that evidence. I have better things to do than spend my time repeating it all here, especially since you will only play word games with it.

Do us all a favor and go back under your bridge.

[travis]

If someone would have bothered to post some logical evidence that the law applies, this would have been a very short thread. I'm not here to convert anyone, just to check whether such a proof exists.

The fact that say you are looking for "proof" that "the law applies" shows that you're not serious, or that you don't really understand how to study the subject of law.

The legitimate part is defined in the law itself, which is circular. If democracy, in it's many forms, defines what is legitimate, than lynching is perfectly legitimate.

That's gibberish.

Of course, what did I expect other than legal opinions. You've forgotten the frivolous part. Evidence, huh!

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: you're free to ignore me. Don't feed the trolls, remember?

[Pottapaug1938]

Considering that amendments in the US Constitution are routinely breached with impunity....

Give us ONE example -- one which has withstood appellate review.



And, as for your latest remark about "legal opinions" -- you MUST be wilfully obtuse, because I explained the difference between legal opinions of an appellate court and from someone not an appellate judge, and you still missed the point.



I'll ignore you if I so choose; but if you feel free to waste my time with bullsh*t, I retain the right to respond as I choose.

Now, how about providing some legal authoority for your assertions, Blackstone?

[JamesVincent]

Unless you all really think this trip is necessary I would suggest we drop this one.

[Pottapaug1938]

Unless Travis can back up his assertions with hard, verifiable evidence, you're probably right.