Marc Stevens might say it’s physical location, or “jurisdiction”, as evidenced by focusing on evidence of jurisdiction. Thing is, that’s the same thing the ones he calls thieves and liars claim.
Batman might say claims, including assumptions. If Batman is right, which claims specifically?
Could the most important assumption be that it’s not possible to speak with the claimant? If one believes what’s been read/heard over the years, will one fail to ask to speak with the claimant? Would that show no interest in agreeing with the claimant? Would that show being more interested in dealing with representatives, than the one said to be represented?
A representative might claim the rules of x apply, but is that the same as x claiming the same thing? Would that be the same as x claiming there was agreement to rules of x?
If someone says rules of x apply, how about asking “will x be testifying that they apply?”
Could the claimant be the only one with firsthand knowledge of agreement to the claimant’s rules? Or who/what the rules apply to? Or who/what is allegedly being charged? Will the claimant be testifying that there is/was agreement to rules of the claimant, and if not, why would someone think the rules apply?
The name, owning (house, car, money, birthday, case, ID, etc), citizenship, residency, occupation, male/female. These are all claims to be mindful of, but focusing on them, and bringing them up can put one in a defensive position, I believe. I played the name game before doing 4 days… I believe I was defensive, just trying to keep separate from the name and “you”, but never asking about testimony from the claimant. I believe I was afraid of appearing crazy… after all, “everybody knows” it’s not possible for the claimant to speak, right? How does one come to know that? By what was heard or read? Or by firsthand experience, by asking when the claimant will be testifying?