Jurisdiction evidence

[AndyK]

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.

There are also a few questions which I submitted which are awaiting answers.

Dr C: Would it be possible for you to gently pull your crickerts out of hibernation?

[LPC]

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?

Good points.

There are a number of indications that we are not dealing with a rational person, but something more like a crude "Eliza" program:

1. The phrase "logical evidence" is nonsensical. Evidence is is factual, not logical. The fact that things fall down and not up is neither "logical" or "illogical," but it evidence of the existence of gravity. Logic applies only in deciding what conclusions to reach about evidence. Travis demands "evidence" that laws apply, but rejects all actual evidence, such as the language of the statutes and the actual application of the statutes, without any explanation for his own "logic."

2. The criteria for evaluating "evidence" is ad hoc and constantly shifting. The idea that "law" is "moral" is rejected, and yet evidence of the application of statutes is rejected on grounds that can only be described as moral or philosophical and not factual or logical.

3. Responses to questions and challenges deflect and change the subject rather than actually addressing the issues presented.

[Judge Roy Bean]

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!

Trollin', trollin', trollin'
Though the logic's stolen
Keep on postin' nonsense
Rawhide!

[The Observer]

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.

I agree with Wes. There is no reason for the thread to be locked. travis has violated none of the rules for posting. I agree that he is not being intellectually honest and is hiding behind rhetoric. Therefore, he is providing evidence of why he cannot be right about his arguments. And that is important to keep. If you are tired of his topic, you can simply do as James did and put him on ignore. Otherwise continue to contribute to the discussion and I am sure travis will provide more evidence of how wrong he is.

Calling for the banhammer should only occur if this guy has risen to the levels of David Merrill Van Pelt.

[JamesVincent]

I agree with Wes. There is no reason for the thread to be locked. travis has violated none of the rules for posting. I agree that he is not being intellectually honest and is hiding behind rhetoric. Therefore, he is providing evidence of why he cannot be right about his arguments. And that is important to keep. If you are tired of his topic, you can simply do as James did and put him on ignore. Otherwise continue to contribute to the discussion and I am sure travis will provide more evidence of how wrong he is.

Calling for the banhammer should only occur if this guy has risen to the levels of David Merrill Van Pelt.

Like I said, if you guys feel that the thread should be kept going, so be it. I personally see no reason in it and see it as . After watching the threads, over and over, of the likes of Weston White, Marc Stephens, DMVP, Harvester, Bork and others it seems we go through the same thing time after time. Somebody busts in, chants a bunch of BS over and over, refuses to admit there is a possibility they are wrong, calls everyone names and tells the world how unfair we are because we don't subscribe to his "legal expertise". And I stated that if the thread is locked and he reopens the exact same thread under a different name, then he should be banned. I tend to be a very direct person when it comes to BS. Like was said, 50 posts into this thread and nothing of substance was raised by the OP yet. And any replies have been meet by derision, not debate.

[LPC]

I agree with Wes. There is no reason for the thread to be locked.

Like I said, if you guys feel that the thread should be kept going, so be it. I personally see no reason in it and see it as . After watching the threads, over and over, of the likes of Weston White, Marc Stephens, DMVP, Harvester, Bork and others it seems we go through the same thing time after time. Somebody busts in, chants a bunch of BS over and over, refuses to admit there is a possibility they are wrong, calls everyone names and tells the world how unfair we are because we don't subscribe to his "legal expertise".

Agreed. And that's the cost of an open, educational forum. We have to spend time educating.

Travis himself will never understand, but it only by allowing him a forum in which to go down in flames that we can educate others.

I tend to be a very direct person when it comes to BS. Like was said, 50 posts into this thread and nothing of substance was raised by the OP yet. And any replies have been meet by derision, not debate.

Yes, and that's educational.

[LPC]

Returning to the original question:

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

Still not sure what question you (travis) are asking, but the following are possible answers:

1. The actual language of the US Constitution, Internal Revenue Code, and Regulations.

2. The voting records of the ratification of the Constitution, and the records of the elections of the Congresses that enacted the Internal Revenue Code.

3. Court decisions that applied that Constitution, those statutes, and those regulations to citizens and residents of the United States (meaning the citizens and residents of the states of the United States).

4. Legislative histories showing that Congress was aware of, and approved, the court decisions described in #3.

5. Newspaper and other public records showing that voters knew of, and approved of, the decisions described in #3 and #4.

6. Academic papers, academic journals, news reports, and other public records reporting and confirming the decisions described in items #2, #3, #4, and #5.

Please explain why the evidence described above is irrelevant, immaterial, or unreliable. (And those are three different questions.)

To the extent that you believe that voting records are irrelevant or immaterial, the counter-question is: Do you believe in democracy or democratically elected republics?

If you do not believe in democratic systems, would you prefer: (a) anarchy, (b) monarchy (with you as the monarch, of course), (c) oligarchy (with you as one of the ruling class, of course), (d) a monarchy or oligarchy in which you are a peasant, or (e) none of the above (to be explained).

[Kestrel]

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?

• 

Have fun, everyone.

[grixit]

I nominate Travis for the title of Self Censoring Solopsist.

[travis]

@AndyK: what question(s) do you want me to answer?

@Famspear: how exactly did I ask for others to "show me the law", "in so many words"? What is my ilk? BTW, the hypocrisy part was not directed at you.

@Dr. Caligari: by logical evidence I mean relevant facts that are not fallacious.

@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"?

"Responses to questions and challenges deflect and change the subject rather than actually addressing the issues presented."

Answer the OP question without resorting to logical fallacies. That's all I'm asking.

I'm not disputing that some people were elected in governmental positions, I'm disputing that it's evidence. I've earlier shown it to be a circular argument (1, 3 and 4). Points 2 and 5 are also invalid, unless logic is subject to statistics. Can a majority of people (in this case, the voters) decide what's real and what's not? For instance, the people in Europe in the Dark Ages largely believed the Earth to be flat, in the center of the Universe, etc. Was that true?

About your reference to democracy, how can a group of people, made of individuals that don't have the rights they confer to government, give all the powers that the government has? I assume 1 individual doesn't have the monopoly on anything but himself. 2 people, the same. What's the number for which the magic happens?

@Cpt Banjo: try to give me evidence and see whether I correctly reject it, or not.

LE:
@Pottapaug1938, AndyK: you seem disagree with the Social Contract part. What is your position then, that the law applies because it's The Law?

@Pottapaug1938: The Law applies because people believe they have an obligation to subject themselves to the law? If they don't have such a belief concerning my baseless claims, it all goes down to the power of faith? You're talking about a religion here?

[Gregg]

You are more than welcome to pursue your own form of happiness in other lands where the law is much more loosely enforced, I suggest Somalia where they have no effective government whatsoever and no income tax to boot! Just a suggestion, take a lot of guns, because of you think our government abuses the concept of "might makes right" you really have a few lessons to learn about when government abdicates that responsibility.

Now run along....

[Pottapaug1938]

@Pottapaug1938: you seem disagree with the Social Contract part. What is your position then, that the law applies because it's The Law?

@Pottapaug1938: The Law applies because people believe they have an obligation to subject themselves to the law? If they don't have such a belief concerning my baseless claims, it all goes down to the power of faith? You're talking about a religion here?

I'm not going to even respond to this post. For one thing, Travis is yet again trying to drag some sort of nebulous philosophical concept of "Social Contract" into a discussion of whether the law applies to everyone. He has been repeatedly shown where to find this answer; and I decline to do so once more. On top of that, he is also putting words into my mouth, because I never said anything like what he things I said, as stated in the second post above.

Travis is just like many other whiny Americans who want to feel that they don't have to obey the laws of this country. For them, the national motto isn't "E Pluribus Unum" or "In God We Trust", but "I Doan' Wanna DO That, An' You Can't MAKE Me!"

[travis]

@Gregg: funny you should mention Somalia considering the US foreign policy regarding that country and it's sabotage of the ICU government from 2006. You consider that "might makes right" can be moral? About your suggestion: NO!

LE:
@Pottapaug1938: thank goodness for honest to God Americans like yourself that tell other people what to think. Should I expect any more ad hominems, lies and intellectual bankruptcy coming from you?

[wserra]

Yeah, asking for evidence which isn't fallacious is a clear sign of irrationality.

No. Asking for facts to prove things not provable by facts - and refusing to listen to attempts to explain the conundrum - are clear signs of irrationality. Moreover, insisting that the "proof" consist only of your permitted selection of "facts" is a further sign. Most people would agree that it is pretty bleedin' obvious that one proves legal propositions by citing law - a statute, an authoritative court decision, whatever. You insist on . . . what? The Voice of God? In point of fact, if the Voice of God intoned something you didn't want to hear, you'd likely insist that His words could be ignored because they consisted of all capital letters.

how can a group of people, made of individuals that don't have the rights they confer to government, give all the powers that the government has?

And you wonder why people are impatient with you.

This board has been in existence for over ten years. Some of the people participating in this thread have been posting here that entire time. You and people like you come along, convinced that you can show up the lawyers, judges, CPAs and various other people who may not be legal professionals but know a lot about the law. You are so confident that you don't bother to check if your very "points" have been made before, recently even. As I pointed out above, Stevens himself has made multiple posts here, both times leaving in a huff after being shown embarrassingly unable to establish what he regards as first principles. Now you ask the question above. Had you simply bothered to use the board's "search" function on your own key words - "individuals", "powers", "government" - you would have found this thread, in which less than a year ago we discussed this subject in detail.

Allow me to quote myself: Two points: first of all, no one says that individuals passed on or ceded to government any power that they ever had. Individuals convened as representatives and agreed that government would possess certain powers, precisely because they as individuals lacked the power "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". That agreement was then ratified by more representatives. You want to argue that those individuals were unable lawfully to accomplish that vis-a-vis you, and that therefore as far as you're concerned government is illegitimate? Fine, but you have just nullified all government. Embrace your anarchy. But explain what relevance the concept of law has to an anarchist.

I won't hold my breath. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, there really is no point in responding to sophistry. Abide the day when travis actually adopts some principles.

[travis]

@wserra: I applaud you for stating that there is no evidence. That takes courage.

[Pottapaug1938]

LE:
@Pottapaug1938: thank goodness for honest to God Americans like yourself that tell other people what to think. Should I expect any more ad hominems, lies and intellectual bankruptcy coming from you?

Once again, Travis has made a post which has nothing to with anything I've said. To give one example: he accuses me of lying; yet it is HE who has been caught in at least two lies, just concerning me.

Also: he likes to identify perceived classic debating flaws in the posts of mine and of others. Well, the post I quote has a classic: it's nothing more than the "have you stopped beating your wife?" gambit.

[Pottapaug1938]

@wserra: I applaud you for stating that there is no evidence. That takes courage.

That's not what he said; but then again, you've never correctly characterized anyone else's statement on Quatloos, so why should this be any different?

[AndyK]

Let's go back and review some things (again )

Travis has accepted the following as facts; thereby evidence according to his definition:

The United States of America is an independant, sovereign nation.

Representatives from each of the first thirteen states (original British colonies) adopted a Constitution following the war for independence?

The constitution provides for and establish a central government composed of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches?

The constitution, as amended according to its own rules and procedures, remains in effect?

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

Thus, there is a constitutionally-based, legitimate government in place in this country and that there has been one since the ratification of the Constitution. EVERY aspect of and action by this government reflects the will of the majority of the people (via their representatives) in the Untied States.

Every law which has ever been passed has, when challenged, withstood review by various courts up to and including the Supreme Court or has been stricken.

Thus, the laws now in effect (unless challenged and found invalid) apply (per the Constitution) to any human being within the boundaries of the 50 states with specific exceptions such as diplomatic immunity and no income tax imposed on foreign tourists.

Please explain how these FACTS --EVIDENCE -- fail to answer your original question

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

[travis]

@wserra: I applaud you for stating that there is no evidence. That takes courage.

That's not what he said; but then again, you've never correctly characterized anyone else's statement on Quatloos, so why should this be any different?

If wserra considers that I'm putting words into his mouth, he can say so himself, he's obviously a grownup. On the other hand, considering that he accuses me of sophistry, he's also dishonest.

You Pottapaug1938 keep repeating that you've provided evidence that the law applies, and that you're wasting time with me. I've said that you're a liar because you continue to waste time and the "evidence" you presented is actually a circular argument. You do understand what a circular argument is, don't you? I don't think you're a moron. On the banning issue, I do think you have more in common with Bolsheviks than ordinary people, but hey, that's what basing your perception of reality on delusions leads to.

[travis]

Let's go back and review some things (again )

Travis has accepted the following as facts; thereby evidence according to his definition:

Come again? How is a random fact evidence for anything? If I say that the sky is blue (fact) is proof that you owe me $5000, would you pay up? Aren't you missing the relevant, hence not fallacious, aspect of this?