Let me start my questions from the beginning.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Geographically the " United States" is ten miles by ten miles, along with any land aqquired for boatyards,etc plus any territories.

No, we've already been through that. The reference you gave applies only to issues involved the United States (in a political sense) as a debtor under Article 9 of the UCC, with respect to perfecting certain security interests. For that purpose, the United States (as in the government) is deemed to be located in the District of Columbia.

But that's not the general definition of "United States" in the geographic sense.

For example, under the Internal Revenue Code, the term "United States" in the geographic sense generally means "the States and the District of Columbia." See 26 USC section 7701(a)(9). Then for specialized definitions within the Internal Revenue Code, there might be other definitions.

You obviously don't understand some basics about statutory construction and how definitions work.

First thing first before we go down this road, do you abide by these rules?

“(5) The rule ejusdem generis (of the same kind): when a list of specific items belonging to the same class is followed by general words (as in ‘cats, dogs, and other animals’), the general words are to be treated as confined to other items of the same class (in this example, to other domestic animals).
“(6) The rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one is the exclusion of the other): when a list of specific items is not followed by general words it is to be taken as exhaustive. For example, ‘weekends and public holidays’ excludes ordinary weekdays. [U/L emphasis added.] A Dictionary of Law, 7th ed., Law and Martin, eds., s.v. “Interpretation, Rules and Principles of Statutory” (see n. 19, p. 7 hereof for full source reference).

[LPC]

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, 672*672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.[6]

1. Would you agree that definition one means international law?
2. Would you agree that definition two means the exclusive legislative authority given to congress over the seat of government,boatyards,territories.
3. Definition 3 easily being what most people think.

No to #2. The "sovereignty of the United States" extends to the states of the United States as well as the territories of the United States. The courts of the United States have consistently held that “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National....” and that the citizenship of the United States “owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

[Famspear]

By the way, definition 1 - the United States in the political sense (i.e., the U.S. government) - DOES have an international law aspect to it. The United States government is recognized as a sovereign by other countries in the sense that other countries, for example, will enter treaties with the United States, will exchange ambassadors, etc.

A "sovereign citizen" -- meaning, a citizen of the United States -- is not "sovereign" in the sense described in the preceding paragraph. The government of the United Kingdom or of France or Greece is not going to recognize you, Patriotdiscussions, as a "sovereign", is not going to enter a treaty with you, etc. Further, you as a "sovereign citizen" are subject to all the federal, state and local laws of the United States, as is every other "sovereign citizen."

[Famspear]

First thing first before we go down this road, do you abide by these rules?

“(5) The rule ejusdem generis (of the same kind): when a list of specific items belonging to the same class is followed by general words (as in ‘cats, dogs, and other animals’), the general words are to be treated as confined to other items of the same class (in this example, to other domestic animals).
“(6) The rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one is the exclusion of the other): when a list of specific items is not followed by general words it is to be taken as exhaustive. For example, ‘weekends and public holidays’ excludes ordinary weekdays. [U/L emphasis added.] A Dictionary of Law, 7th ed., Law and Martin, eds., s.v. “Interpretation, Rules and Principles of Statutory” (see n. 19, p. 7 hereof for full source reference).

It's far too late to be talking about "first things first."

And you're asking the wrong question.

I believe you need to let others worry about these rules of statutory construction. I am pretty confident you don't understand them.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, 672*672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.[6]


1. Would you agree that definition one means international law?
2. Would you agree that definition two means the exclusive legislative authority given to congress over the seat of government,boatyards,territories.
3. Definition 3 easily being what most people think.

No, definition one means the United States is a political sense -- generally, the United States government.
And we both know the us government is a corporation correct 28 USC 3002(15)(a)
No, definition two means the physical territory of the states and the District of Columbia (and, in some cases, places like the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and so on).
Are you really trying to suggest that the United States sovereignty extends over the sovereign states?
Definition three does mean a reference to the fifty states. However, obviously most people do not think the way you seem to think they do. Most people I have ever known use the term "United States" to refer to the geographical area of the fifty states and the District of Columbia (definition 2).
that would be definition 3, as it clearly says
Many people also understand the use of the term in definition 1 - to describe the government, as in a citation to a court case. Most people, if they understand that United States v. Jones is the name of a court case, will readily realize that it's a dispute between the United States GOVERNMENT and somebody named "Jones."

yes,yes and the Supreme Court told us all the way back in 1795 that all governments were legal fictions and corporate bodies. Hence the act of 1871 making D.C. A muni.

You obviously have led a sheltered life heretofore.

Insults again really, stick to the facts jack.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, 672*672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.[6]

1. Would you agree that definition one means international law?
2. Would you agree that definition two means the exclusive legislative authority given to congress over the seat of government,boatyards,territories.
3. Definition 3 easily being what most people think.

No to #2. The "sovereignty of the United States" extends to the states of the United States as well as the territories of the United States. The courts of the United States have consistently held that “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National....” and that the citizenship of the United States “owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

No shit, that is what jurisdiction is all about. The states did not give up their sovereignty to the us government.


It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. . . .

1st power is definition 3, second power is definition 2

[Patriotdiscussions]

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, 672*672 or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.[6]

1. Would you agree that definition one means international law?
2. Would you agree that definition two means the exclusive legislative authority given to congress over the seat of government,boatyards,territories.
3. Definition 3 easily being what most people think.

No to #2. The "sovereignty of the United States" extends to the states of the United States as well as the territories of the United States. The courts of the United States have consistently held that “The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National....” and that the citizenship of the United States “owes allegiance to two sovereigns, and claims the protection of both.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 549 (1876).

In terms of legislative power within the Union,11 the Constitution limits Congress to subject- matter jurisdiction only (no territorial or personal jurisdiction), and provides, in Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 1–16 thereof, those subjects over which Congress may exercise such power; to wit, in part:
Article I. . . . Section 8. The Congress shall have Power . . . To borrow money . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations . . . To coin Money . . . To establish Post Offices . . . To declare War . . . To provide and maintain a Navy . . .

In certain geographical areas without the Union, however, the Constitution, in the same and another section, authorizes Congress to exercise exclusive legislative power; to wit:
Article I. . . . Section 8. . . . The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over such District . . . as may . . . become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings . . .
Article IV. . . . Section 3. . . . The Congress shall have Power to . . . make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . . . [Emphasis added.]

The phrase “Seat of the Government of the United States,” of course, refers to what will be the District of Columbia.12 The phrases “all Places purchased . . .” and “Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (see n. 6, supra for the March 4, 1789, meaning of “United States”) are self-explanatory.

Wherefore, there are two distinct types of geographical area over which the Constitution authorizes Congress to exercise legislative power: (1) all that geographical area within the Union, over which Congress may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction only, and (2) all that geographical area without the Union (described above) over which Congress may exercise territorial, personal, and subject-matter (exclusive) jurisdiction.
Shortly after implementation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in 1821 confirms these two types of geographical area and the respective scope of congressional legislative power authorized within each; to wit:

It is clear that Congress, as a legislative body, exercise two species of legislative power: the one limited as to its objects, but extending all over the Union: the other, an absolute exclusive legislative power over the District of Columbia. . . . 13

[Famspear]

And we both know the us government is a corporation correct 28 USC 3002(15)(a)

Nope. That's not what it says. Here's what it says -- and I'm quoting all of (15), not just (15)(A):

(15) "United States" means --

(A) a Federal corporation,

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

And, since you made your usual mistake of carving something out of its context without explaining its context, I'll humiliate you yet again: This provision, part of 28 USC 3002, deals only with definitions for purposes of sections 3001 through 3308 of title 28 of the United States Code, relating to federal debt collection procedure.

that would be definition 3, as it clearly says

No, the geographic definition is definition 2 -- the physical AREA of the states and DC.

......and the Supreme Court told us all the way back in 1795 that all governments were legal fictions and corporate bodies. Hence the act of 1871 making D.C. A muni...

And your point is what? That all governments are "legal fictions and corporate bodies" in the same sense as .. oh, wait, let me guess: ExxonMobil? Microsoft? Ford Motor Company?

This isn't about facts, "Jack". It's about the law and your inability to get things right when attempting, in your amateurish way, to pontificate about the law.

You obviously have led a sheltered life heretofore -- jack.

[chronistra]

Are you really trying to suggest that the United States sovereignty extends over the sovereign states?

Yep. Cf. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

A state's laws and constitution are subordinate to the U.S. constitution and laws; the U.S. sovereignty overrides that of the states.

[Patriotdiscussions]

By the way, definition 1 - the United States in the political sense (i.e., the U.S. government) - DOES have an international law aspect to it. The United States government is recognized as a sovereign by other countries in the sense that other countries, for example, will enter treaties with the United States, will exchange ambassadors, etc.

A "sovereign citizen" -- meaning, a citizen of the United States -- is not "sovereign" in the sense described in the preceding paragraph. The government of the United Kingdom or of France or Greece is not going to recognize you, Patriotdiscussions, as a "sovereign", is not going to enter a treaty with you, etc. Further, you as a "sovereign citizen" are subject to all the federal, state and local laws of the United States, as is every other "sovereign citizen."

A citizen is a species of person with origins in ancient Rome who is the subject of rights and duties and has certain privileges and immunities. Citizens do not have unalienable Rights, only entitlement to civil (municipal) rights, and are subjects, not sovereigns; to wit:

CITIZEN. In general. A member of a free city or jural society [8] (civitas,) [9] possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.

In American law. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, and by virtue of birth or naturalization within the jurisdiction, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. . . .

The term “citizen” has come to us derived from antiquity. It appears to have been used in the Roman government to designate a person who had the freedom of the city, and the right to exercise all political and civil privileges of the government. . . . [U/L emphasis added.] [Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. “Citizen”]

citizen . . . a native or naturalized person of either sex who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it and to enjoyment of the rights of citizenship [Merriam- Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, inc. version 2.5, s.v. “Citizen”]

[JamesVincent]

Insults again really, stick to the facts jack.

I wanted to address this for a minute. You have insulted, either in plain words or tone of words, just about everyone that has answered you and have the nerve to complain that someone insults you back? And, quite frankly, I didn't see a thing insulting about Famspear's post. Several people have told you that you needed to order your thoughts before you write them on here, and several people have politely told you that you need to do some research on your own before hand, and some not so politely. The train of thought you are pursuing will de-rail here soon as this is an old and tired argument. There is nothing new that can be brought out of it that has not been refuted in the past 100 years or more. Look some of this drek up on Quatloos before you trot it out, it has all been covered multiple times.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Are you really trying to suggest that the United States sovereignty extends over the sovereign states?

Yep. Cf. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

A state's laws and constitution are subordinate to the U.S. constitution and laws; the U.S. sovereignty overrides that of the states.

I see, so a divorce could be handled in district court since the us sovereignty extends over every state correct?

Where do you people come from?




Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute and argued that the federal Circuit Courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows:

"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein," 3 Wheat., at 350, 351.

In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the Court held:

"What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?

"We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power," 3 Wheat., at 386, 387.

"The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. ... Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.

"It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction," 3 Wheat., at 388.

Thus in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution.

The decision in Bevans was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the state law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled this sale of federal land, the Court held:

"The legislation and authority of congress is confined to cessions by particular states for the seat of government, and purchases made by consent of the legislature of the state, for the purpose of erecting forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states, of all territory within their limits, not ceded to, or purchased by, congress, with the assent of the state legislature, to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states."

A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefore had not been ceded to the United States. The rationale of its opinion stated:

"To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he says,) the offence committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state."

[JamesVincent]

I see, so a divorce could be handled in district court since the us sovereignty extends over every state correct?

Divorces are handled in Circuit Court where I come from. Have no clue what that has to do with anything Federal though.

The rest of what you posted sounds more like dual sovereignty then anything else. If the state wants to prosecute they may, with or without the federal case. On the reverse federal may prosecute with or without the state. As a rule of thumb federal law trumps state law though.

[Patriotdiscussions]

In June 1957, the government of the United States published a work entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States: Report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, Part II, which report is the definitive study on this issue. Therein, the Committee stated:

"The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17 .... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place," Id., at 41.

"It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non-interference by the State with Federal functions," Id., at 45.

"The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State," Id., at 46.

"On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government," Id., at 107.

[chronistra]

I see, so a divorce could be handled in district court since the us sovereignty extends over every state correct?

Not ordinarily, because the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and divorces are typically handled under state law. However, under certain circumstances family law matters come into the federal courts, and when they do, the decisions of the federal courts supersede those of state courts.

For example, see the rather famous case of Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1, 1967). The State of Virginia refused to recognize the Lovings' marriage because it violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. The federal courts invalidated Virginia's law, because U.S. sovereignty extends over every state.

No, Bevans does NOT stand for the proposition that that federal jurisdiction extends only over the geographic areas wherein the federal government possesses the power of exclusive legislation. Here in my home state of Kansas, e.g., the feds do not have the power of exclusive legislation, but they routinely prosecute cases involving federal laws: immigration offenses, money laundering, drug crimes, etc., and those prosecutions are not dismissed for want of jurisdiction nor are they remanded to state court. You are confused.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I see, so a divorce could be handled in district court since the us sovereignty extends over every state correct?

Divorces are handled in Circuit Court where I come from. Have no clue what that has to do with anything Federal though.

The rest of what you posted sounds more like dual sovereignty then anything else. If the state wants to prosecute they may, with or without the federal case. On the reverse federal may prosecute with or without the state. As a rule of thumb federal law trumps state law though.

Sovereignty is the right to legislate exclusively over people and place. The united state sovereignty does not extend into the states.


"We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed," 44 U.S., at 221.

"ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted," 44 U.S., at 223.

"Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law," 44 U.S., at 228, 229.

[Patriotdiscussions]

I see, so a divorce could be handled in district court since the us sovereignty extends over every state correct?

Not ordinarily, because the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and divorces are typically handled under state law. However, under certain circumstances family law matters come into the federal courts, and when they do, the decisions of the federal courts supersede those of state courts.

For example, see the rather famous case of Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1, 1967). The State of Virginia refused to recognize the Lovings' marriage because it violated Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. The federal courts invalidated Virginia's law, because U.S. sovereignty extends over every state.

No, Bevans does NOT stand for the proposition that that federal jurisdiction extends only over the geographic areas wherein the federal government possesses the power of exclusive legislation. Here in my home state of Kansas, e.g., the feds do not have the power of exclusive legislation, but they routinely prosecute cases involving federal laws: immigration offenses, money laundering, drug crimes, etc., and those prosecutions are not dismissed for want of jurisdiction nor are they remanded to state court. You are confused.

That's subject matter jurisdiction not territorial jurisdiction, I am afraid your confused.

[Patriotdiscussions]

JURISDICTION . . . Power of governing or legislating. . . . Jurisdiction, in its most general sense, is the power to make, declare, or apply the law . . . Jurisdiction is limited to place or territory, persons, or to particular subjects. . . . [Webster’s Dictionary, 1828 ed., s.v. “Jurisdiction”]

[chronistra]

That's subject matter jurisdiction not territorial jurisdiction, I am afraid your confused.

So the state of Kansas does not have subject matter jurisdiction over certain crimes committed within the territorial boundaries of Kansas, and another entity (the federal government) does. How does that help your argument?

Cases from state courts are quite frequently appealed to federal court on allegations that the state violated federal law or the federal constitution. Have you ever heard of a case from federal court being appealed to a state court? What implications do you draw from the absence of such cases?

[JamesVincent]

You're quoting from Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 3 How. 212 212 (1845) and it appears you're quoting from the plaintiff's arguments. And it appears to me that the plaintiff lost. And it dealt with whether or not the United States had the right to grant the City of Mobile power over a land that may have been under water at high tide and low tide. See, that's the problem with quote mining. It often brings up.... absolutely nothing.