Jurisdiction evidence

[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.

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

I didn't say you "claimed" that you were entitled to "evidence." You ASKED for evidence. I responded by saying you're not entitled to receive evidence.

Again, the rest of us are not here to satisfy you. The fact that you are asking for "evidence" shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. So don't give me this crap about "no problem, say so."

I don't need a quote from the firearm law as an example of legalese. I've already explained the definition of "firearm" as used in that law to another bozo in another 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?

No, amendments to the U.S. Constitution are not "routinely breached with impunity." That's just empty rhetoric. And your rhetorical question, "Who are you going to turn to, the people that want you out of the business?", is more empty rhetoric.

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

No, I didn't "miss the part" about "self" censorship. Again, lawyers are not somehow under the control or influence of "bar associations", and lawyers are not engaging in "self-censorship". You are completely delusional.

Travis, I am not a psychologist, but I have been studying people like you for over 14 years -- and pretty intensively over the past seven years. Your posts indicate that you are not serious about learning about the subjects you have brought up; instead, you are trying to be argumentative. I suggest that you step back and examine yourself and your own thoughts, and try to understand why you are having the feelings and thoughts you are having.

I would also suggest that you try make an HONEST effort to learn more about the real world. Your posts indicate that you are "living" in a largely imaginary world of your own when it comes to your feelings about law and the Constitution and how things work in this country.

I doubt that you will follow my advice.

[Burnaby49]

Look, it's simple. Travis can prove his own point about the government having the positive duty of having to prove that laws applies to people like him through a simple demonstration that cuts through all this abstract rambling.

He can go to the most convenient police station and throw a brick through the window. When the police come out he can tell them they can't arrest him unless they can prove to his satisfaction that the law applies to him. He spends an hour or two on the sidewalk countering their feeble efforts by using the same incisive socratic methods he's employed here then walks away and makes you all look like monkeys.

Travis?

[travis]

Guys, if by dropping me you mean banning me, sure, that's how thugs deal with problems (sarcasm).

I'll save you the trouble though. I haven't seen any evidence so far from users with thousands of posts under their belt. The amount of hypocrisy I get from you is epic. You live in Legalland, where logic is replaced by black priests wearing robes who interpret the written law. How could I possibly compete with that? All hail to the Social Contract ubergod!

[Famspear]

Guys, if by dropping me you mean banning me, sure, that's how thugs deal with problems (sarcasm).

I'll save you the trouble though. I haven't seen any evidence so far from users with thousands of posts under their belt. The amount of hypocrisy I get from you is epic. You live in Legalland, where logic is replaced by black priests wearing robes who interpret the written law. How could I possibly compete with that? All hail to the Social Contract ubergod!

You're still upset because in so many words, you want others to "show me the law" as people of your ilk often put it. No, you don't need to see "evidence" from "users with thousands of posts under their belt." You have all the "evidence" you believe you need, and nothing that anyone says or writes is going to change your mind. Your mind is already made up.

And no one cares. What you think, what you know, what you believe, and how you feel are of no importance.

No, you're not getting "hypocrisy" from us.

hypocrisy (noun):

a pretending to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; esp., a pretense of virtue, piety, etc.

--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, p. 691, World Publishing Co., Inc. (2d Coll. Ed. 1978).

We're not pretending to be what we are not, and we're not pretending to feel what we do not feel. We are not engaged in a "pretense" of virtue or piety, etc.

You, however, are asking for "evidence" when what you are really doing is pretending to be searching for answers. You are trying to win an argument while only pretending to be searching for answers. You are engaged in hypocrisy.

[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?

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?

Well, "I assume so" isn't quite a 'yes' or 'no', but we'll take it as "yes" to all.

No one said anything about a social contract. You're jumping the gun to divert this.

Okay. You have conceded that there is a constitutionally-based, legitimate government in place in this country and that there has been one since the ratification of the Constitution.

That leads us to the next point: Said legitimate government has, and has executed, the power to institute laws pertaining to the entire geographic area of the (now 50) states. Said laws thereby, according to the Constitution, apply to any human being within the boundaries of the 50 states.

Now, this has been a bit of a conceptual leap, so I'll wait until you have a chance to digest it and reply.

[Pottapaug1938]

Travis also lives in a fantasy world where judges and justices are to be shunned because they are "black priests wearing robes who interpret the written law"; but we are somehow supposed to rely on "logic" in order to know what the law is.

What a great legal scholar....

[travis]

@Pottapaug1938: I meant black robed judges, but whatever. I guess you were lying about wasting time.

@AndyK: if by legitimate you mean moral, no. If you mean sanctioned by law, sure. So what? What's the difference between that and a Social Contract. Can I make such claims that I have jurisdiction over continents, if I want? If no, why?

[travis]

@Famspear: I dare you to quote me on saying that: "show me the law". I asked for evidence that the law applies, not what the law says. I couldn't care less, in this matter. If you are a lawyer I can understand why you misinterpret my positions, strawman arguments are the best in the trade.

Hypocrisy: pretending to live in the real world, governed by logic (at least that's what empiricism shows) but disregarding logic whenever it's not supporting your religious beliefs, while accusing me of doing what you're doing.

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: I meant black robed judges, but whatever. I guess you were lying about wasting time.

No, YOU'RE the one who's lying -- again. What I said was "if you feel free to waste my time with bullsh*t, I retain the right to respond as I choose." I am exercising that right. And, by the way, I was quoting YOU in that comment. And again, you evade the thrust of my post by ignoring it. What a great show of intellectual courage!

@AndyK: if by legitimate you mean moral, no. If you mean sanctioned by law, sure. So what? What's the difference between that and a Social Contract. Can I make such claims that I have jurisdiction over continents, if I want? If no, why?

You can make such a claim; but then, you need to provide some proof of that. You won't, though. You've done nothing here but lie, evade, misdirect and misrepresent (your ongoing obession with a "social contract" is proof of this -- as AndyK said, no one here has said anything about it). Also proof is your distortion of Famspear's comment. He said "(y)ou're still upset because in so many words, you want others to "show me the law" as people of your ilk often put it." He did NOT say that you said "show me the law".

And, for yet another time, I have told you where to find the evidence which you seek. You just don't want to look where I tell you, because you won't like what you see.

[Cpt Banjo]

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 correctness of a logical proof* depends on the premises one begins with. It's quite clear that you would never accept premises that would lead to the conclusion that the law applies to you.

* As opposed to the structural validity of a proof, which depends solely upon the reasoning steps used without regard to the truth or falsity of the premises.

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.

Whose morality? The one that burned heretics and witches or the one that commanded that rebellious children be stoned?

[AndyK]

@Pottapaug1938: I meant black robed judges, but whatever. I guess you were lying about wasting time.

@AndyK: if by legitimate you mean moral, no. If you mean sanctioned by law, sure. So what? What's the difference between that and a Social Contract. Can I make such claims that I have jurisdiction over continents, if I want? If no, why?

That's not a response. You now have two choices:

1 -- take some time and respond to the simple logical statements and questions

2 -- do otherwise and invoke the thread-closing (with an appriopriate comment) hammer.

Your choice. Either participate in open, unbiased, fact-based dialogue or go away

[Famspear]

@Famspear: I dare you to quote me on saying that: "show me the law". I asked for evidence that the law applies, not what the law says. I couldn't care less, in this matter. If you are a lawyer I can understand why you misinterpret my positions, strawman arguments are the best in the trade.

No, go back and read what I wrote. I didn't "quote" you as saying "show me the law," and I am not implying that you said that.

Here is what I wrote:

You're still upset because in so many words, you want others to "show me the law" as people of your ilk often put it.

You focused on the "show me the law" phrase and you ignored the rest of the sentence -- especially the "in so many words" phrase. I didn't say that YOU said "show me the law." I indicated that PEOPLE OF YOUR ILK often use those words. If you want to learn about how law works, you are going to have to read -- and think -- more carefully and clearly that this, travis.

Hypocrisy: pretending to live in the real world, governed by logic (at least that's what empiricism shows) but disregarding logic whenever it's not supporting your religious beliefs, while accusing me of doing what you're doing.

No, that's not "hypocrisy," and that's not what I'm doing, either.

First of all, not everything in the real world is governed by "logic" -- at least, probably not in the sense in which I suspect you use the term "logic." Second, I am not "disregarding" logic. Third, your reference to "religious beliefs" is complete gibberish. Fourth, I'm not accusing you of doing what I'm doing.

You are pretending to be asking for "evidence". I am not pretending to be asking for "evidence".

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

Travis: What do you mean by "logical evidence"? What would satisfy you?

We can show you court decisions and statutes that say that the law applies to you, but you have already said that that isn't what you consider "evidence." We can also show you the evidence of your own senses: if you stand in front of a police station smoking crack, you will be arrested, prosecuted and punished. But you have also said that that isn't what you consider "evidence." So just what is it that you are talking about?

[LPC]

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?

You're back to your fixation with morality.

Law is backed by force, and the force is one of the things (but not the only thing) that makes it "law" and not (for example) "custom."

But force itself does not make anything "right."

This may be startling concept to you, but there are such things as bad and immoral laws.

I'm not assuming that breaking the law has desirable consequences,

How can breaking a "law" have consequences of the law does not apply to you?

not if your a peasant.

Sorry to hear about your feudal status. Perhaps you'd like to join the modern era?

[AndyK]

Over 50 posts and not a singlr contribution from Travis beyond blather and baseles rhetoric.

Absent a specific esponse from Travis to the simple questions attempting to establish a discussion baseline, this thread has a very short life expectancy.

I suspect the user account "Travis" may shortly suffer the same fate unless he displys some reason for him to continue to be allowed to converse with adults.

[JamesVincent]

Over 50 posts and not a singlr contribution from Travis beyond blather and baseles rhetoric.

Absent a specific esponse from Travis to the simple questions attempting to establish a discussion baseline, this thread has a very short life expectancy.

I suspect the user account "Travis" may shortly suffer the same fate unless he displys some reason for him to continue to be allowed to converse with adults.

I reiterate, unless you guys really feel this trip is necessary then we should drop it. We know from previous run ins with people like this that any argument you use will be ignored since it doesn't match their fantasy. Lock the thread, if it is restarted then lock the account. We have yet to see any actual attempt at intellectual discussion as Andy pointed out.

[wserra]

Please don't either lock the thread or attempt to hammer travis - unless, of course, he takes a turn for the abusive or the Van Pelt-ish.

We have yet to see any actual attempt at intellectual discussion

For exactly that reason. The blind insistence on something nonsensical is instructive.

[Dr. Caligari]

Before we lock the thread, I'd like to give travis a little time to respond to my post of 10:10 p.m. Not that I'm expecting a real answer from him, but I'd like it to be clear to the lurkers that when travis is asking for "logical evidence" it is akin to him asking to see an even number that's not divisible by two.

[JamesVincent]

As you guys wish. I, for one, will state I am close to actually ignoring someone for the first time since joining Quatloos. I see nothing happening here but more evasions, idiocies, and mud slinging, which is what we had said we no longer wanted to deal with.

[AndyK]

Fine. Travis has 24 hours to demonstrate that he is a true TP / Sovereign / Whatever and not just another drive-by troll.

So far, his posts have been nothing more than parroting of long-since refuted and debunked Internet-based arguments -- all of which have been carefully restated in the responding posts.

Travis seems to be building Travis-Land (ref Planet Merrill) where he gets to establish the definitions and determine the rules. Fine, So be it.

As long as Travis, or any others, believe they can BELIEVE the rules of law, and of our government structure, out of existence; they are free to do so. They are also free to live within this counrty and society.

Unfortunately, their BELIEVEs might come in to conflict with their surroundings.