Jurisdiction evidence

[Duke2Earl]

As stated above, evidence is factual. The evidence that a law applies to person is also factual. Anyone that doubts that laws apply to them can choose to violate those laws and see (factually) if the laws apply to them. The rest of this theoretical horse manure is angels on the heads of pins.

Travis wants to ask a question for which he will accept no answer to as a way to prove to himself what a brilliant person he is. He certainly has't proved his brilliance to me. But I am sure he feels much better about himself having proved to himself that we are all idiots. Personally, I am more than a little tired of it and him.

[notorial dissent]

It would appear that Twavis's method of viewing evidence consists of closing his eyes, sticking his fingers in his ears, all the while loudly chanting "it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist". And thus I have wasted the last of my time and interest on him.

[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?

....(crickets).....

[.]

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

It's unsporting of you to ask Travis to cite a law against murdering him as that would require him to engage reality.

[grixit]

Seems to me, that in the case of a true "citizen at large", the most logical solution under current law would be to treat them as a citizen of the District of Columbia. Of course that should only be temporary as i am also in favor of getting rid of DC's special status. Not by making it a state, though, i'd just like to have Columbia County, MD, with a really big federal plaza.

Which means that for a permanant solution we should officially define a non state specific domestic citizenship.

[JamesVincent]

Seems to me, that in the case of a true "citizen at large", the most logical solution under current law would be to treat them as a citizen of the District of Columbia. Of course that should only be temporary as i am also in favor of getting rid of DC's special status. Not by making it a state, though, i'd just like to have Columbia County, MD, with a really big federal plaza.

Which means that for a permanant solution we should officially define a non state specific domestic citizenship.

My understanding was that if you lived in D.C. you are a citizen of the District of Columbia. Since it is a Federal zone it is not a state but it exists within the borders of the US so it still has its own citizenship, not like Guam or the other Protectorates of the US, where you are a citizen of that country and a dependent of the US.

[LPC]

Seems to me, that in the case of a true "citizen at large", the most logical solution under current law would be to treat them as a citizen of the District of Columbia.

For state income tax purposes, I believe that some states consider a person who has been a resident of a state to continue to be a resident of that state until the person establishes a residence in a different state.

Which is consistent with the law of "domicile" (an issue I have to address from time to time because it's generally agreed that the decedent's estates are administered under the laws of the state in which the person was domiciled at death). "Domicile" is the place to which you intend to return whenever absent, and a person can have several residences but only one domicile. The general rule is that, once a domicile is established, that state continues to be the person's domicile until the person establishes a different domicile.

[LPC]

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.

But wouldn't the interstate commerce be an element of the crime and not a jurisdictional element? (Which is not to say that there might not be preliminary hearing to determine if there was enough proof of interstate commerce to warrant a trial.)

The jurisdictional issue is inter-related with the crime, because without the interstate commerce element Congress would have no power to enact the criminal statute, and without the federal criminal statute the federal courts would have no jurisdiction (and I believe that every court has jurisdiction to determine it's own jurisdiction), but it still seems to me that the question of whether the alleged conduct occurred in interstate commerce goes to whether there is proof of a crime as defined by the federal statute, and not whether federal courts have jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution.

Another type of federal jurisdiction that can be fact-based is admiralty jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that a houseboat with no independent means of propulsion, and that was "moored indefinitely," was not a "vessel" subject to federal maritime jurisdiction.

Like the issue of citizenship in diversity cases, and what Famspear wrote above, there didn't seem to be any factual dispute, and the only issue before the district court, circuit court, and Supreme Court was the legal issue, which was whether the statute in question gave federal courts jurisdiction over that kind of houseboat.

[wserra]

But wouldn't the interstate commerce be an element of the crime and not a jurisdictional element?

An effect on interstate commerce is certainly an element of various crimes (Hobbs Act and others), which the prosecution must therefore prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. But it is also the basis for federal jurisdiction. In the right case, it can be the subject of a successful pretrial motion to dismiss. United States v. Mennuti, 639 F.2d 107 (2d Cir. 1981). I see that this practice became disfavored just as I was leaving federal criminal law (almost to the month). United States v. Alfonso, 143 F.3d 772 (2d Cir. 1998). But it was the practice for a while.

it still seems to me that the question of whether the alleged conduct occurred in interstate commerce goes to whether there is proof of a crime as defined by the federal statute, and not whether federal courts have jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution.

It goes to both. That's why cases call it the "jurisdictional element".

[wserra]

We haven't heard from twitvis in almost 48 hours, since Saturday morning - an eternity for him. But what else happened during that time?

Well, webhick installed ZB Block early Sunday. What's that have to do with anything? This: twitvis bounces posts through rdsnet.ro, the better to remain unaccountable for his nonsense. What ZB Block thinks of that particular spamhaus:

Host: 82-137-9-58.rdsnet.ro
IP: 82.137.9.58
Score: 1
Violation count: 1
Why blocked: RDSNET is a constant source of spam and attacks (HN-0090).

We won't be seeing posts from there anymore.

So c'mon, twitvis, time to man up.

[Famspear]

We haven't heard from twitvis in almost 48 hours, since Saturday morning - an eternity for him. But what else happened during that time?

Well, webhick installed ZB Block early Sunday. What's that have to do with anything? This: twitvis bounces posts through rdsnet.ro, the better to remain unaccountable for his nonsense. What ZB Block thinks of that particular spamhaus:

Host: 82-137-9-58.rdsnet.ro
IP: 82.137.9.58
Score: 1
Violation count: 1
Why blocked: RDSNET is a constant source of spam and attacks (HN-0090).

We won't be seeing posts from there anymore.

So c'mon, twitvis, time to man up.

I guess widdle Twavis is not pwaying wiff his compwooter wight now......

Maybe he's pwaying wiff his X-box.

[Pantherphil]

You are better men (and women) then I am, Gunga Dins. Your response of calm and rational explanation in the face of nonsense gibberish and childish insults reflects great credit on all of you.
Responding to this addlepated troll is simply a waste of electrons.

[JamesVincent]

I guess widdle Twavis is not pwaying wiff his compwooter wight now......

Maybe he's pwaying wiff his X-box.

Hey, I spend a good amount of time some days on my Xbox blowing off stress.

[Famspear]

I guess widdle Twavis is not pwaying wiff his compwooter wight now......

Maybe he's pwaying wiff his X-box.

Hey, I spend a good amount of time some days on my Xbox blowing off stress.

Yes, but widdle Twavis pways Xbox to twy to keep his mind off his mean ol' Mommie and her all unfair wwwwrooooles that she makes Twavis obey..... Mommies and Daddies can be sooooo unfair! And Twavis wants to know: Just where is the "evidence" that Twavis has to obey Mommie and Daddy???!!!??

[Pottapaug1938]

Boy, am I slow.

I just now got why Pottapaug1938 chose the posting avatar (s)he did.

"Sovereign" citizens indeed!

"He."

[Pottapaug1938]

Boy, am I slow.

I just now got why Pottapaug1938 chose the posting avatar (s)he did.

"Sovereign" citizens indeed!

Or maybe because he is a coin collector and this is a unique and very valuable coin. It shows the vanity and disregard for tradition of that empty-headed fool King Edward VIII. By tradition each British monarch's portrait on coinage faces in the opposite direction to that of his or her predecessor. Edward broke this tradition by insisting that he be faced in the same direction as his father. What obviously very important consideration demanded that this centuries old rule be violated? Edward wanted the parting in his hair to show, he thought it highlighted his good side. Since this was tradition, not legislation, the government agreed to his wishes and left-facing coins were prepared for minting. Very few examples were struck before he he was kicked out and none were officially issued.

I've got an issue of "definitive" Edward VIII stamps, in denominations of 1d, 2d, 3d, and 4d. The right half of the stamp is white; but the color gradually fades in so that the left side is dark. The original stamps showed Edward VIII facing the viewer's right; but as with the coins his wishes were followed and he faces left (since stamps are much easier to get into production than coins, these stamps actually were used). However, instead if "facing into the light", Edward "faces into the darkness." Some commentators of the time made much of this symbolism.

[LightinDarkness]

You know, I don't get why TPs/Soverigns/Related Crackpots like the OP keep trying to push this argument that "the law doesn't apply to me unless I consent." Its a very, very, very, very, very old argument. What I don't get is why anyone would even bother to make it in the first place.

Regardless of whether one believes the law can't apply to you without your consent, the definition of government is whoever has the legitimate use of force. Legitimate, in this case, is defined by the public in general and not by the individual. The public in general perceives that the government is legitimate and may legitimately enforce its laws. Therefore, even if there is some magic legal doctrine which magically frees you from being under the law because you don't like it, it doesn't really matter because the government has the guns and the legitimacy to use them to get you to comply.

At the same time, if one really believes that the law doesn't apply to you unless you say it does, then you really haven't thought the implications of that through one instant. TPs and sovereigns are so obsessed with contracts, yet they seem to ignore that they gave their implied consent to contract with the government when they enjoyed its benefits. And every one of them has enjoyed the benefits of the government: its military and police protection, its welfare systems (hilariously many of them are on social welfare programs), etc. By enjoying those benefits you give your implied consent to be governed, period.

So, wheres the evidence, OP? The evidence is that by posting here you have proven that you have enjoyed the benefits by government, and thus contracted with them through your implied consent. You see, the internet was a government funded project to begin with and you wouldn't have been able to post here if the government had not established that project. Thus, you benefited from a government service. Thus, you are subject to its laws. Don't like it? Fine with us - move to a place where you no longer enjoy the benefits of the US government. I hear Somalia is nice, if your into that kind of thing.

[Pottapaug1938]

This business about "the law doesn't apply to me unless I consent to have it apply" is essentially the "magic words" doctrine. People looking for an excuse to avoid their obligations under the law will search for any words which they can find to justify their pre-formed and passionately-held conclusions; and once they find a phrase like "the consent of the governed", they scream something like "EUREKA! I DO NOT CONSENT, SO I DO NOT HAVE TO OBEY THOSE LAWS IF I DON'T WANT TO OBEY THEM!!!!!!!!" and then fasten onto it like a person who is drowning fastens onto the life ring thrown by a lifeguard.

[Burnaby49]

As a follow-up on British coinage customs, Edward VIII's successor, his brother George VI, had his coins minted with him also facing left making three lefties in a row. Not because of vanity. He wanted to get back into step with custom so he ignored his brother's foolishness and continued the custom as if his brother had been portrayed correctly.

Elizabeth has been on Canadian coinage since 1952 so I've dealt with a right-facing monarch almost my entire life, left would seem somehow unnatural. One thing that is somewhat unusual for coinage (I assume, I'm no expert) is that the Queen's image is changed periodically to reflect her actual age. So I've gone from a young newly-married queen through middle age to her current geriatric depiction. At such time as Charles accedes he will miss all those interim steps and start out depicted as an old man. Then again, given how long Elizabeth's mother lasted, she may outlive him.

[Pottapaug1938]

As a follow-up on British coinage customs, Edward VIII's successor, his brother George VI, had his coins minted with him also facing left making three lefties in a row. Not because of vanity. He wanted to get back into step with custom so he ignored his brother's foolishness and continued the custom as if his brother had been portrayed correctly.

Elizabeth has been on Canadian coinage since 1952 so I've dealt with a right-facing monarch almost my entire life, left would seem somehow unnatural. One thing that is somewhat unusual for coinage (I assume, I'm no expert) is that the Queen's image is changed periodically to reflect her actual age. So I've gone from a young newly-married queen through middle age to her current geriatric depiction. At such time as Charles accedes he will miss all those interim steps and start out depicted as an old man. Then again, given how long Elizabeth's mother lasted, she may outlive him.

Victoria had four different portraits appearing on her coinage in the UK. Three were used on her copper and bronze coins, and two of those, plus a third, were used on her silver and gold coinage.

in 2008, I visited the National Currency Museum in Ottawa (well worth a visit by anyone); and two of the things which I most enjoyed seeing were the plaster model for Edward's new Canadian issues (with his name spelled "EDWARDUS") and a "galvano" (essentially a positive electroplate, derived from the plaster model and a "negative" intermediary, used to prepare the dies for the coinage) with the name spelled "EDWARDVS". I understood that dies were being prepared when the word came down to stop work on them.