Marc Stevens

JCM · 9th January 2017, 11:23 PM

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

fagin · 10th January 2017, 03:38 AM

Wut?

MRC_Hans · 10th January 2017, 03:45 AM

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

Sideroxylon · 10th January 2017, 03:46 AM

Link to source of butthurt for context?

marplots · 10th January 2017, 06:52 AM

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."

fuelair · 10th January 2017, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by JCM

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

Foolmewunz · 11th January 2017, 10:46 PM

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?

Vortigern99 · 12th January 2017, 09:58 AM

Who is Marc Stevens? What does Ed Helms have to do with any of this? What is the OP talking about?

Agatha · 12th January 2017, 12:58 PM

Marc Stevens is a small fish in the tiny pond of tax protesters/detaxers. He has some odd ideas about jurisdiction.

As mod:

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

fuelair · 16th January 2017, 01:03 PM

The real Marc Stevens!!!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Stevens_(actor)

fuelair · 16th January 2017, 01:04 PM

The other guy was never in my radar/////////

Border Reiver · 17th January 2017, 05:28 AM

And his arguments are poor, bearing almost zero relation to actual legal practice and theory.

Tomtomkent · 18th January 2017, 10:16 PM

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"?

marplots · 18th January 2017, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

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.

Border Reiver · 19th January 2017, 05:13 AM

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.

Dave Rogers · 19th January 2017, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

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

tinribmancer · 22nd January 2017, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

The real Marc Stevens!!!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Stevens_(actor)

marplots · 22nd January 2017, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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.

10th January 2017, 03:38 AM	#2
fagin Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: As far away from casebro as possible. Posts: 7,070	Wut?
	__________________ There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

10th January 2017, 03:45 AM	#3
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 23,588	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
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

11th January 2017, 10:46 PM	#7
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 41,468	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 It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.

12th January 2017, 09:58 AM	#8
Vortigern99 Sorcerer Supreme 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

16th January 2017, 01:03 PM	#10
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	The real Marc Stevens!!!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Stevens_(actor)
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

10th January 2017, 03:46 AM	#4
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,483	Link to source of butthurt for context?

10th January 2017, 06:52 AM	#5
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	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."

16th January 2017, 01:04 PM	#11
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581	The other guy was never in my radar/////////
fuelair Banned Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 58,581

17th January 2017, 05:28 AM	#12
Border Reiver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,695	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?

18th January 2017, 10:16 PM	#13
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,607	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"?
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,607	__________________ @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).

18th January 2017, 11:00 PM	#14
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent 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.

19th January 2017, 05:13 AM	#15
Border Reiver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 6,695	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?

19th January 2017, 05:26 AM	#16
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,427	Originally Posted by marplots 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
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

22nd January 2017, 12:03 PM	#17
tinribmancer Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle Join Date: Dec 2015 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by fuelair The real Marc Stevens!!!!!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Stevens_(actor)
	__________________ "Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton "And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong

22nd January 2017, 03:31 PM	#18
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers 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.