No, im saying that whether or not the law applies to a specific circumstance or person can only be established with legal argumentation. Not with evidence. You might not think this is the way it ought to work, but this is the way it does, in fact, work. That's why judges, not juries, decide issues of jurisdiction.
Really?
http://marcstevens.net/articles/debunking-territorialpersonal-jurisdiction-doesnt-exist.html
yeah, really.
Im not sure what the point of the linked article is. Are you saying he presents evidence in the article? He doesn't. He only presents argumentation.
Its also, as i noted before, quackery. deficient argumentation based on uncited, redacted court documents. Which, for some reason that surpasses my understanding, do not include the judges decision. Its cherry picking. Its like running a scientific experiment to test a hypothesis and choosing to reveal only a few paragraphs of the procedure and not the results.
Also, its worthwhile to point out that hes citing a traffic court judge on consitutional law.
I mean, if youre looking for legal argumentation that jurisdiction is a thing, its right there in the constitution.
If youre asking for my own legal argumentation to refute it, it isnt very hard. Territorial jurisdiction is right there in article three of the constitution (at least in the US... i have no idea how things work in the great white north, but its probably similar)
emphasis mine.
Of course, this is argument, not evidence. And its based on laws (that you don't believe in), so its not going to change your mind. But whats the point in going to court and arguing that there shouldnt be laws when the whole point of a court is to interpret them. Youll just lose.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit