It isn't a fact at all, which is why i used quotes around the word 'fact'.
OK, sure.
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.
What do you mean there is no way to prove or disprove "how can one prove that a law is applicable?"?
The answer is the same with how do you prove any other statement: provide evidence or facts backing it up.
What about a similar question, "What evidence or facts do you have that exist that prove that any law applies because you are physically located in a particular geographical region?"
So i could cite laws and court decisions, but that would just be more law (which you don't think applies).
It would be like me saying "what evidence or facts do you have to support the statement '13 is a prime number'"
And you can make whatever mathematical argument you use to prove a number is prime.
And i say "oh well, i don't believe in math, so your mathematical argumentation isn't valid. because its just more math supporting the original math. I want evidence that the number is prime"
But there is no evidence. There is only argumentation. In this particular case, that argumentation is mathematical, rather than legal, and in some ways the argumentation you can present is more concrete. But its still argumentation.
The same is true with the "might vs right" question you pose in your earlier comments. You can't prove something is right or wrong based on evidence, like you can prove its 200 degrees kelvin out or whatever, because questions of right and wrong aren't factual questions like temperature, theyre ethical questions that are answered by ethical argumentation. To support the statement "this is right" or "that is wrong" requires argumentation, not evidence.