there is more to the affidavit, I just put the facebook inquiries up front since most people don't get to see what information the police seek from big brother zucker. I was surprise to see it too, and more so about them waiting to check his chat with everyone and that they wanted to know his politics. The officer's statements on probable cause for the search begins on page 76, and goes on to page 81. The one for his arrest begins on page 7, and goes on to page 15.

http://neophytesoftware.com/steemitfirstamendment/nw.pdf

Many states does allow a person to withdraw a plea. I am pretty sure all states have a writ of habeas corpus [harder for people who plead guilty], and many have procedures for new trials [if they went to trial in the first place]. I am not sure if Nicolas could withdraw his plea.

What gives he courts the authority to proceed is the consent of the governed. Although not really a forgotten term, I don't think many people really think about what it means. Just living, being born into, a country seems to be a substitute for consent to most folks these days. But that obviously hasn't always been the case when governments had to use torture to get the people to willingly consent to be governed.

with that substitution in mind, Basically if the legislature agrees that something is a crime, and the governor or president [as the case may be] agrees [keeping things simple] then the court has jurisdiction over an accused person with probable cause-even when an action would be unconstitutional. There is also the common law system which are crimes recognized by the courts without a statute, but that is rarely used. There is no consent, and some may argue there never really was and cannot be. However, I think, the closest thing I can get to a true consent to be governed is to restore the concept of natural law. We are so far off course for that.

The question of jurisdiction is not really my forte outside of chancery, which is yet another way for a court to have jurisdiction over us. Chancery isn't too bad to challenge jurisdiction over, but you have judges that don't understand this basic concept because of influence from the feminist lobby. As to criminal and tort matters, issues like jurisdiction tend to be addressed prior to trial to be heard in the trial courts and to preserve the issue on appeal. These questions of law generally are not for a jury. However, there may be issues raised in trial that I suppose could ask a just to grant a directed verdict, or influence their decision on a question of fact. I am not sure if matters of jurisdiction can be raised in criminal or tort cases for the first time on appeal.