This is the second senior deputy attorney general in New Hampshire who I’ve confronted who could not provide a single fact proving the laws of the “state” of New Hampshire apply just because one is physically in New Hampshire.
Cort uses the typical dodges; he claims I’m asking for a legal opinion and also claims my question for evidence is “meaningless”. Cort also believes the constitution and laws apply because they say so. Though he claims the “history” of how they came about is also proof they are valid and apply. When asked if the “history” was the fact everyone is forced to pay, he disagreed.
If someone puts forth an argument such as: if X, then Y, and you ask: What evidence proves if X, then Y is true, that is not a “meaningless question”. Claiming it’s “meaningless” is a dodge to avoid having to admit you have no evidence to support your argument.
And for the few critics who, like the bureaucrats, will dodge the question by asking:
What evidence do you have that the constitution and laws DON’T apply to you?
The main issue with this garbage is simple logic: I don’t bear the burden, the one making the argument does:
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit…the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.
Even if I took the burden upon myself, I have many calls like this one to politicians who admittedly have no evidence their laws apply. All they have is aggression and “because we said so.” So even looking at this from a “legal” perspective, there is a presumption there are no facts until the politicians present them:
I don’t consider “pay or go to jail” and aggression as evidence a written instrument applies to me. But if you do, then I would suggest not having children as the world has more than enough crazy as it is.