I mean, if youre looking for legal argumentation that jurisdiction is a thing, its right there in the constitution.

So ... the State has jurisdiction because the constitution says that the State has power?

What gives the constitution any power?

Are you saying that the law applies because some other written document says it does?

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.

It is not argumentative to ask for evidence to prove that a claim is true. If I were to take a position in a court that doesn't have any evidence to support my claim, the prosecutor and judge would consider that claim as having no merit and not be a factor in the court decision, i.e. there is a lack of fact or evidence supporting my supposed statement.

On the other hand, if I ask the prosecutor to provide evidence for his claim that the laws apply and he is unable to furnish any proof to support this but the court makes the assumption that this claim is true and continues with the trial or what have you, then that is a double standard since the rules don't apply to both parties in the same way.

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.

The only portions of the court documents that are redacted are a person's name and the number associated to the hearing of the case (or other minutae to completely identify it). If you would actually read them, you would see that. The redaction that you bring up is nothing more than to protect privacy and doesn't play any role here, so I can only assume you bring it up to discredit the entirety of the documents as opposed to any rational discussion about what they say.

I can't say anything as to the veracity of the documents that are provided, but if you take them at face value (or if hearings are public record ... not sure if they are or not) for what is written (and if you read anything, there is a judge, court house, and date all associated to it -- so some type of investigative work can be done, if you are so inclined ... ), then you'll see that the judge agrees that the claim that the law applies is an essential element of the charge and requires proof from the prosecution.

Also, its worthwhile to point out that hes citing a traffic court judge on consitutional law.

All laws are based on this claim. It doesn't it matter if this is "only" traffic court.

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.

Very true.

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.

More often than not, you are compelled to go to court, otherwise they kidnap and imprison you.

The point is to make it well-known the inconsistency in which they apply their own rules, that it is a double standard and fundamentally dishonest.

Youll just lose.

Are you sure about that?