not in the US. Or any jurisdiction ive ever heard of. I have to ask... what kind of 'evidence' could there ever be to establish the 'fact' that a law, any law, was applicable to a person or circumstance.
How is the statement "All laws are applicable," a fact?
Saying that that statement is a fact is presumptive, and it is being asserted without any evidence.
When I measure the temperature, I can use a thermometer and make a statement that "This thermometer reads 293.2 Kelvin," and provide evidence, the actual thermometer reading, that makes this statement a fact.
On the other hand, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and all other statists are saying, "The temperature outside is 1000 Kelvin."
It isn't a fact at all, which is why i used quotes around the word 'fact'.
As an example, if I ask you "What evidence might one present to prove what the temperature is outside"
You could say to me "Well, i could go outside with a thermometer, measure the temperature, and that would be evidence to show what temperature it was outside" Because the question that is being asked is a question of fact, there is some sort of possible relevant evidence to demonstrate its truth or flasehood.
but if i ask you the same question about demonstrating the applicability of a law, there is no way to prove or disprove it (at least, no way that isnt argumentative and therefore self-referential). Regardless of whether its true of false, when i ask you 'how can one prove that a law is applicable', there is no way to answer the question. Because the question is not a question of fact.