ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Marc Stevens

Reply
Old 9th January 2017, 11:23 PM   #1
JCM
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 649
Marc Stevens

Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist

Ed Helms


Originally Posted by Article by Marc Stevens
There are two arguments critics raise when trying to discredit my work regarding jurisdiction: 1) it requires no evidence to prove the claim is true; and 2) is easily proven if accused of violating the “law” within a certain territory. The first claim is so silly it should not have to even be addressed, though I still will as both are untrue.
Rest of article is here

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
" You are uneasy; you never sailed with me before, I see. " Andrew Jackson

Last edited by Loss Leader; 12th January 2017 at 02:30 PM. Reason: Added quote box for clarity.
JCM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:38 AM   #2
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 3,810
Wut?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:45 AM   #3
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,547
Good style would be to post a synopsis of the argument and its refutation, so readers might decide whether to read the articles.

There are several good reasons why most are reluctant to spend time following links of unknown content.

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 03:46 AM   #4
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kalbim Ankara'da.
Posts: 17,127
Link to source of butthurt for context?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 06:52 AM   #5
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,350
This is funny, but tragic too.

They make a great deal of logic and analysis, but one wonders, if the law doesn't apply because of jurisdictional issues, then how is it that someone can appeal to the law for remedy? It is the bind of solipsism with jail serving as the rock kicked in: "Thus do I refute it."
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2017, 07:12 AM   #6
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,025
Originally Posted by JCM View Post
Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist

Ed Helms
http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/up...dy-300x168.jpg

There are two arguments critics raise when trying to discredit my work regarding jurisdiction: 1) it requires no evidence to prove the claim is true; and 2) is easily proven if accused of violating the “law” within a certain territory. The first claim is so silly it should not have to even be addressed, though I still will as both are untrue. rest of article is here

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
tldw
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:46 PM   #7
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 35,531
Why is this in "Education"? Is there a GoFundMe to send Stevens back to school? Is this sub-forum also meant to include Anti-Education?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 09:58 AM   #8
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
 
Vortigern99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
Who is Marc Stevens? What does Ed Helms have to do with any of this? What is the OP talking about?
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix
Vortigern99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:58 PM   #9
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 10,783
Marc Stevens is a small fish in the tiny pond of tax protesters/detaxers. He has some odd ideas about jurisdiction.

As mod:

Mod Info Given the Freeman/SovCit/Tax Protester elements of Marc Stevens' beliefs, this thread really belongs in C&CT. Which is where I will move it, even without Mr Stevens' consent.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
London, Hamburg, Paris, Rome, Rio, Hong Kong, Tokyo; L.A., New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Shard End and...

Vodka kills salmonella and all other enemies of freedom for sure - Nationalcosmopolitan
Agatha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2017, 01:03 PM   #10
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,025
The real Marc Stevens!!!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Stevens_(actor)
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2017, 01:04 PM   #11
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 52,025
The other guy was never in my radar/////////
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2017, 05:28 AM   #12
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,620
And his arguments are poor, bearing almost zero relation to actual legal practice and theory.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2017, 10:16 PM   #13
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,729
Anyone want to explain what the arguments are, and what Ed Helms had to do with anything? Or shall I just st respond "Chuckle Brothers"?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2017, 11:00 PM   #14
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,350
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Anyone want to explain what the arguments are, and what Ed Helms had to do with anything? Or shall I just st respond "Chuckle Brothers"?
I'll take a shot.

1) Jurisdiction is an element of almost all criminal charges (maybe all, I don't know).
2) Elements of criminal charges must be proven at trial and demonstrated to "be likely true" at a hearing when accused of a crime. (This part is correct, the prosecution at least has to address the elements of the charge against you to the judge's satisfaction or the case is dismissed. But it's a very low bar.)
3) Elements of a crime are shown through evidence. This bit gets a bit waffly as to what constitutes "evidence."
4) Asserting something to be true - in this case, jurisdiction - is not evidence in the legal sense.
5) Since prosecutors cannot prove jurisdiction, nor offer evidence it applies, the judge must dismiss the case on a motion which presents this argument.

I think that's it. Where it runs into the weeds is where it always does with these people: they drill down ever deeper into legal nuances and only accept definitions which fit their idea. They ignore the experimental evidence - case law and tradition - wholesale. Instead, they treat the courts like some Dungeons and Dragons rule book dispute, forgetting the judge is the dungeon master.

It's embarrassing; this legal strategy of "getting out on a loophole." It's like a zero-day exploit. It might work once, if the judge is entertained enough by it, but it's hardly something to rely on. Professional jurists will find a work around in the service of justice. It's what they are paid to do.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2017, 05:13 AM   #15
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,620
That and proving the jurisdiction of the court (at least in Canada) is ludicrously simple:

a. Superior Court or Court of Queen's Bench has authority to hear cases for offenses that are alleged to have occurred within the territorial confines of Canada, and a limited number of extra-territorial offences; and
b. Part of the information of a criminal offence includes the location of the crime and where the accused was arrested.

If b is within a, then Canadian court has jurisdiction.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2017, 05:26 AM   #16
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
4) Asserting something to be true - in this case, jurisdiction - is not evidence in the legal sense.
This, I think, is the Achilles heel of the argument, because the fundamental attribute of legislation is that a law is what it is stated to be. It's not necessary, therefore, to defend the assertion that the written law is the actual law, because there is no distinction between the two; it's only necessary to provide evidence that the situation is covered by the written word of the law within the range of interpretations placed upon it by precedent.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2017, 12:03 PM   #17
tinribmancer
NWO Templar Agent And Proud Of It!
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,286
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower."

JC Denton

tinribmancer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2017, 03:31 PM   #18
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,350
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This, I think, is the Achilles heel of the argument, because the fundamental attribute of legislation is that a law is what it is stated to be. It's not necessary, therefore, to defend the assertion that the written law is the actual law, because there is no distinction between the two; it's only necessary to provide evidence that the situation is covered by the written word of the law within the range of interpretations placed upon it by precedent.

Dave
Yeah, they aren't big on the bit I highlighted. Instead, they want to relitigate it fresh. But then a problem immediately arises when they get a ruling that disagrees. There's no follow up on their part. Unlike actual lawyers, who can accept decisions from the referee and move on, these folks have put all their eggs in the one basket.

Last edited by marplots; 22nd January 2017 at 03:33 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.