On the issue of Personal Jurisdiction

For a court to have jurisdiction means that its word is law. It means that the parties of a case are subject to it’s decisions.

This right to subject an individual to a court’s rulings, does not come from whether it is reasonable or fair. It does not come from whether it is convenient for them to answer the complaint or whether they are present in any given location. The right of subjugation derives directly from the individual’s consent.

Historically, this consent to the governing body has been implied through one’s presence in the territory that it controls.

But, what if the actor has no body? What if the suit is against a company which does not exist in physical form, but merely acts through it’s agents, through computers, telephones, etc. What then is left to determine to who’s rulings it is subject to?

Well, all that’s left is it’s Actions, and indeed, what better a test could there be? Is it not perfectly logical that one be held responsible for their actions in the land where those actions occurred? Is it not the ruler of that territory who is charged with enforcing the laws? Would, as Justice Hugo Black said, it not deprive that state and its residents of their right to self-rule?

The Market…

The beauty of the free market is that the price of products is not based off of what it would cost the buyer to make the product, but what it would cost the Most Efficient Maker* of the product.

*MEM = the best of those who decide to compete

Warrants and a Fair Trial

Those methods of enforcing law which, by their nature, prevent defendants from acquiring evidence in their defense are unconstitutional because a right to a fair trial is required. Applications of law which necessarily disadvantage defendants deny this right.

The application of search warrants, for example of telephone communications, may be said to present an analogous situation which ought to be allowed. This bears no weight because the analogy is flawed. While these searches ought to be allowed, they ought to be so only as the direct result of the fourth amendment which acts as an exception to the right herein described.

In sum, the right to a fair trial provides the accused with the right not to be subject to actions which necessarily prevent them from gaining evidence. Warrants provide an exception to this rule.