Marc Stevens

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

Ed Helms

Article by Marc Stevens said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rest of article is here

Wut?

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

Link to source of butthurt for context?

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."

JCM said:

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

Ed Helms
[qimg]http://marcstevens.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/andy-300x168.jpg[/qimg]

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

Click to expand...

tldw

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?

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

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

As mod:

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

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

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

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 said:

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"?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

marplots said:

4) Asserting something to be true - in this case, jurisdiction - is not evidence in the legal sense.

Click to expand...

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

fuelair said:

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

Click to expand...

Dave Rogers said:

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

Click to expand...

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.