Posted on September 9th, 2016 by Marc Stevens

It’s the claim that just won’t die, no amount of logic, reason and evidence will kill it apparently. I’m talking about the claim the applicability of political rules (“constitutions” and “laws”) is not about evidence. Critics claim the applicability of political rules is purely an issue or question of law requiring no evidence to be true. While I addressed this in my video about law being philosophical, apparently I still need to add more to really drive home how wrong this claim is.

It’s necessary to address exactly what constitutions and statutes/laws/regulations/ordinances are before showing why the claim above is irrational. Constitutions/laws/statutes etc., are rules made up by people, these people force strangers to give them money under threat of prison. They created rules making their crimes “legal.”

They are not magical, neither Odin, nor Zeus wrote them. They are just rules written by people: “The constitution is a written instrument.” South Carolina v United States, 199 US 437, 448; and: “law. The whole body of rules of conduct applied and enforced under the authority of established government…” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 712. And no, the “people” did not “agree” to have governments, we’re all coerced to pay, so there’s no agreement. The claim not only has no rational basis, the facts, well-established historical and contemporary facts, prove it wrong. The claim: “laws are the will of the people” is dead wrong.

The claim is that whether these rules apply is based entirely on the rules themselves, not any evidence and rational basis. I am incorrect for asking for evidence when it’s strictly an issue of law, no proof is required. This was raised by an attorney in New Hampshire recently:

Remember, they are claiming a “written instrument” no one signed applies to me and creates obligations on me. That’s application and Lysander Spooner already dealt with that issue.

But it bears repeating that if there is a question whether a written instrument (when magic is not being alleged) applies to someone, such as a contract, it’s not a question of law requiring no evidence, it’s an issue of fact that may require a jury trial. It’s going to at least require discovery as there are factual elements to whether there a written instrument constitutes an agreement/contract creating obligations such as an offer, meeting of the minds, freely given agreement and consideration.

Unless magic or Odin are involved, whether a written instrument applies to someone is a question of fact, e.g., is there evidence of a meeting of the minds? Was there a freely made agreement?

As if more is needed to show this is wrong, I’ll provide a few examples of real issues of law.

Does due process require a fair hearing? If cross-examination is denied, is due process violated? Is the income tax a direct or indirect tax? Are the courts limited to only justiciable cases or controversies?

Do you see the differences between an actual issue of law requiring no evidence and the applicability of political rules? Strict issues of law are theoretical because they do not involve anyone or a particular situation, in other words, it’s not practical, but theoretical. And that alone defeats the claim the applicability of the rules doesn’t require proof.

While critics claim the rules apply because they say so, that isn’t rational, that’s circular logic or invoking magic. That’s not the case with real issues of law, such as the ones listed above. Remember to object if this crap is brought up in court.

An example to further explain is, number two is yes, if cross-examination is denied, then due process is violated as per the Fifth Amendment. No circular logic needed and no appeals to tradition or authority. Claiming a written instrument applies to me just because I’m physically in the United States is not the same thing, it’s not theoretical anymore. Claiming the rules apply to me because I’m physically in Arizona makes it a practical issue, otherwise it’s just a non sequitur, another logical fallacy. There is no connecting the two except with more logical fallacies and it involved a fact, my physical location in Arizona.

A question or issue of law only requires an examination of that law because it’s theoretical. Whether that constitution applies in the first place does require evidence because it’s practical, otherwise you’re using logical fallacies or invoking Zeus. A true issue of law has a rational basis to it, while the applicability of political rules is not rational or based on evidence.

This example shows how wrong the claim is that applicability of a written instrument is a strict issue of law requiring no evidence. Does denial of cross-examination without waiver violate due process? (Theoretical issue of law requiring no evidence.) Yes, Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 3:

“[I]f there was here a denial of cross-examination without waiver, it would be constitutional error of the first magnitude and no amount of showing of want of prejudice would cure it.”

The same court also wrote: “In deciding the federal question of waiver raised here we must, of course, look to the facts…” Yeah, of course, that is what you have to do.

Did judge Noble violate due process? (Practical issue of fact.) This question, being practical application, depends on supporting facts showing judge Noble denied cross-examination without waiver. See the difference? Issues/questions of law are theoretical, not practical. Once you’re applying it to someone it becomes practical and is an issue of fact. So it’s no surprise the ethical rules mandate:

“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous…” Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions. (Emphasis mine)

Therefore, attempting to strawman my position (the applicability of the rules requires evidence/practical) into an issue of law (theoretical) fails because practical application requires evidence as opposed to an issue of law. The lack of a rational basis proves it’s not an issue of law and is conflating the theoretical with the practical. It’s arbitrary and treated as irrefutable and ironically, both violate due process.

What the critics do is deliberately conflate an issue of fact (practical) with an issue of law (theoretical), then proclaim they’ve defeated my position with the added benefit of negating a virtual mountain of supporting evidence from more than three continents.

Scott Bales, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, did not attempt to strawman my position, he agreed it was an issue of fact. While he was unable to provide any facts to support his position, he didn’t try using a strawman to divert attention away. Robert Diab a law professor, didn’t try to either. You’ll notice most of the politicians I’ve spoken with don’t pull that nonsense on me.

Yet, a few critics will continue. Will they admit their pretended issue of law is irrational? Will they address how they conflate the theoretical with the practical? What you can guarantee is the critics will not address what is presented here, they won’t even try to show a flaw in the logic; we’ll just see the same tired personal attacks.

The good thing is that they don’t need to admit or address anything, it’s clear for all honest investigators to see. The applicability of political rules is not strictly an issue of law because it starts with a non sequitur, has no rational basis and clearly involves facts. The fact we’re talking about applicability should be sufficient to rule out it being a theoretical issue of law. But, there’s a lot of psychological and monetary inertia in the incentives and livelihoods being pursued by those defending such criminal organizations commonly called “governments.”