Let me start my questions from the beginning.

[JamesVincent]

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?

Not only that, the highest court in the country is a Federal court.... how does that help?

[JamesVincent]

Let me take a wild guess that one of the places you're getting your information from is this site:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

I see a lot of the same, tired old arguments that you have posted listed together in one place. Now, let me tell you something about Constitution dot org, they have been proven wrong many a time, including here in a thread I started awhile ago:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10150

If you notice there was no discussion about what they had posted, it was patent nonsense from the get go, and the review I had posted from another attorney had pretty much covered it. See, the problem with the website in question is that they have a bone to pick and, instead of actually going through and finding out the truth, they quote mine actions until they find one that meets what they want it to say, instead of looking at what it actually says. Several of their quotes are so far off from the actual case they don't even resemble it, lets be nice and say they misquoted it. Would be even closer to the truth to say they out and out lied.

And something else about quoting cases from the 1800s when you're not familiar with the way law works, they may very well be no longer relevant. What we thought in the 1800s is not what we think now. It's like bringing up Dred Scott v. Sandford and citing it as binding precedent when it was superseded by the fourteenth amendment. There are thousands of cases that were precedent in their time, now not so much. They make nice footnotes in how the law used to think.

[JamesVincent]

It was also help immensely if you knew how to actually quote cases. You also appear to quote from Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424 (1912) a case involving whether or not copyright law, or in this case playright law, trumps the common law governing plays. And according to the court it doesn't IF the copyright occurs after the first performance of the play. The first performance gives a common law protection to the play, if I am reading the opinion correctly.

BTW nowhere in the entire case did I see the words you had quoted. Maybe you have the incorrect case.

Edit: typo

[grixit]

Does being born automatically submit you to the social contract?

In widest sense yes it does because a baby is dependent on its parents, who exist in a community. All communities have a social contract. That just means a general agreement about how its members are expected to behave towards each other.

Does not every male citizen have to sign up for selective service?

That's what current US law says.

Does the constitution not outlaw involuntary servitude?

Yes.

Would being born, forced into the social contract and thus selective service be voluntary servitude?

Born: no. Social contract: no. Selective service: i believe that is in fact involuntary servitude, unfortunately the courts have said otherwise. I believe that this will change.

[Pottapaug1938]

(h) [Location of United States.]
The United States is located in the District of Columbia.

Total horsesshit.

Go ahead and give me a legal definition of United States please

Those states mentioned by name in the Articles of Confederation, plus those states which have acceded to the Union per the terms of the U.S. Constitution.

Easy enough?

[Patriotdiscussions]

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?

Bringing up a diversity case does not mean the Feds can start deciding divorces in Kansas.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Let me take a wild guess that one of the places you're getting your information from is this site:

http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm

I see a lot of the same, tired old arguments that you have posted listed together in one place. Now, let me tell you something about Constitution dot org, they have been proven wrong many a time, including here in a thread I started awhile ago:

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=10150

If you notice there was no discussion about what they had posted, it was patent nonsense from the get go, and the review I had posted from another attorney had pretty much covered it. See, the problem with the website in question is that they have a bone to pick and, instead of actually going through and finding out the truth, they quote mine actions until they find one that meets what they want it to say, instead of looking at what it actually says. Several of their quotes are so far off from the actual case they don't even resemble it, lets be nice and say they misquoted it. Would be even closer to the truth to say they out and out lied.

And something else about quoting cases from the 1800s when you're not familiar with the way law works, they may very well be no longer relevant. What we thought in the 1800s is not what we think now. It's like bringing up Dred Scott v. Sandford and citing it as binding precedent when it was superseded by the fourteenth amendment. There are thousands of cases that were precedent in their time, now not so much. They make nice footnotes in how the law used to think.

Great so prove federal jurisdiction in the states is exclusive or admit your wrong.

Again dicta is nothing more then showing how the courts came to the conclusion that they did, it's not binding but it also tells us what we need to know.

Yes every knows about the Erie case in 1938, it however has nothing to do with dicta or the fact that federal court jurisdiction in the states are limited to subject matter jurisdiction unless on Appel. Because we all realize the Supreme Court is an appellate court right?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Does being born automatically submit you to the social contract?

In widest sense yes it does because a baby is dependent on its parents, who exist in a community. All communities have a social contract. That just means a general agreement about how its members are expected to behave towards each other.

Does not every male citizen have to sign up for selective service?

That's what current US law says.

Does the constitution not outlaw involuntary servitude?

Yes.

Would being born, forced into the social contract and thus selective service be voluntary servitude?

Born: no. Social contract: no. Selective service: i believe that is in fact involuntary servitude, unfortunately the courts have said otherwise. I believe that this will change.

1. Correct to a degree, surely you realize a minor can not enter into a contract, that is why there is what's called an age of majority.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ ... 32647.html


4. The courts have said the draft is not. Reason being is because citizens have obligations, service being one of them. The courts have never been asked if the social contract imposes involuntary servitude upon us.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Those states mentioned by name in the Articles of Confederation, plus those states which have acceded to the Union per the terms of the U.S. Constitution.

Easy enough?

Fams already gave you the case from which the definition could be found and I alreaddy quoted, btw a legal definition is not something YOU throw together in your free time but thanks for the offer.

[Patriotdiscussions]

It was also help immensely if you knew how to actually quote cases. You also appear to quote from Ferris v. Frohman, 223 U.S. 424 (1912) a case involving whether or not copyright law, or in this case playright law, trumps the common law governing plays. And according to the court it doesn't IF the copyright occurs after the first performance of the play. The first performance gives a common law protection to the play, if I am reading the opinion correctly.

BTW nowhere in the entire case did I see the words you had quoted. Maybe you have the incorrect case.

Edit: typo

It would help if you quoted cases I quoted, I see no quote of mine in reference to 223 us 424 in my replys, however there is a 44 us 223

[Pottapaug1938]

Those states mentioned by name in the Articles of Confederation, plus those states which have acceded to the Union per the terms of the U.S. Constitution.

Easy enough?

Fams already gave you the case from which the definition could be found and I alreaddy quoted, btw a legal definition is not something YOU throw together in your free time but thanks for the offer.

I'm not throwing anything together, Sparky. Read the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and you'll find everything you need. There is no need for what you call a "legal definition" beyond what you'll find there.

The only reason why you will see "the United States" defined in any law, statute or regulation is for the sake of clarity or for identifying the proper venue (as in the UCC provision saying that the United States is in the District of Columbia, or in those which expand the definition of the US, for the purpose of that particular law, to encompass US territories.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Those states mentioned by name in the Articles of Confederation, plus those states which have acceded to the Union per the terms of the U.S. Constitution.

Easy enough?

Fams already gave you the case from which the definition could be found and I alreaddy quoted, btw a legal definition is not something YOU throw together in your free time but thanks for the offer.

I'm not throwing anything together, Sparky. Read the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and you'll find everything you need. There is no need for what you call a "legal definition" beyond what you'll find there.

The only reason why you will see "the United States" defined in any law, statute or regulation is for the sake of clarity or for identifying the proper venue (as in the UCC provision saying that the United States is in the District of Columbia, or in those which expand the definition of the US, for the purpose of that particular law, to encompass US territories.

Wow, I wonder why the Supreme Court defined it then, maybe they were not as smart as you or perhaps had never heard of the documents you quoted?

[Pottapaug1938]

Those states mentioned by name in the Articles of Confederation, plus those states which have acceded to the Union per the terms of the U.S. Constitution. Read the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, and you'll find everything you need. There is no need for what you call a "legal definition" beyond what you'll find there.

The only reason why you will see "the United States" defined in any law, case, statute or regulation is for the sake of clarity or for identifying the proper venue (as in the UCC provision saying that the United States is in the District of Columbia, or in those which expand the definition of the US, for the purpose of that particular law, to encompass US territories.

Wow, I wonder why the Supreme Court defined it then, maybe they were not as smart as you or perhaps had never heard of the documents you quoted?[/quote]

As I JUST TOLD YOU ABOVE, the reason why you will see "the United States" defined, beyond what you see in the A of C or the Constitution, is for the sake of clarity. People like... you, for example, seem to need clarification.

[Patriotdiscussions]

It seems you need to clarify that United States means different things at different times.

[Pottapaug1938]

It seems you need to clarify that United States means different things at different times.

No, I don't. I know what "the United States" means; and AS I AM POINTING OUT FOR THE THIRD TIME, there are times when a law, regulation or case requires that this definition be clarified for the sake of those who have a valid dispute over the meaning, or for those who might try to play sovrun games with the established definition.

[Patriotdiscussions]

It seems you need to clarify that United States means different things at different times.

No, I don't. I know what "the United States" means; and AS I AM POINTING OUT FOR THE THIRD TIME, there are times when a law, regulation or case requires that this definition be clarified for the sake of those who have a valid dispute over the meaning, or for those who might try to play sovrun games with the established definition.

Ah, so it does not mean different things, well I have to say that saying you right and the sc is wrong on this issue totally makes you right bro.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Break it down for you


The term "United States"

may be used in any one of several senses.


1.It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

2.It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, 672*672

3.or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.[6]


Not sure how you keep missing this, notice the second sentence proving you wrong?

[Pottapaug1938]

It seems you need to clarify that United States means different things at different times.

No, I don't. I know what "the United States" means; and AS I AM POINTING OUT FOR THE THIRD TIME, there are times when a law, regulation or case requires that this definition be clarified for the sake of those who have a valid dispute over the meaning, or for those who might try to play sovrun games with the established definition.

Ah, so it does not mean different things, well I have to say that saying you right and the sc is wrong on this issue totally makes you right bro.

You aren't paying attention, Troll. I am right; and so is the Supreme Court when it clarifies the definition for the sake of, among other things, wilfully obtuse people, or people who like to cherry-pick definitions and play word games with them, like yourself.

Tell you what, Sparky. Since you seem to have such a profound understanding of the definition of "the United States", why don't you prove us all wrong?

[Famspear]

It would help if you quoted cases I quoted, I see no quote of mine in reference to 223 us 424 in my replys, however there is a 44 us 223

No, but the problem is that there is no such case as "44 us 223." Or, to be more specific, the case you are citing is not "44 us 223."

A correct citation is Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845). Page 223 is found WITHIN the report of that case. So, if you want to "pinpoint" cite the specific material you are talking about, you would write it this way: "44 U.S. 212, at 223", or maybe just "44 U.S. at 223".

EDIT: In other words, when you write "44 us 223," you are implying that the case STARTS on page 223. Your problem is that it doesn't. In order to properly cite cases so that other people can find the case, you normally write the volume number (in this case 44), the name of the reporter or the abbreviation therefor (in this case "U.S." for "United States Reports"), and the page number of the FIRST page of the report -- in this case, "212", not "223."

Writing the "pinpoint" version of the citation the correct way ("44 U.S. 212 at 223") allows the reader to find the case and the specific page.

EDIT: I corrected my typo on the case name (Hagan, not Hogan).

[Patriotdiscussions]

It would help if you quoted cases I quoted, I see no quote of mine in reference to 223 us 424 in my replys, however there is a 44 us 223

No, but the problem is that there is no such case as "44 us 223." Or, to be more specific, the case you are citing is not "44 us 223."

A correct citation is Pollard's Lessee v. Hogan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845). Page 223 is found WITHIN the report of that case. So, if you want to "pinpoint" cite the specific material you are talking about, you would write it this way: "44 U.S. 212, at 223", or maybe just "44 U.S. at 223".

I would but I am on mobile as home net is been down, auto correct can be a bitch and why put much effort into? You see I studied psychology as well and while I will never change your folks beliefe's, you can help me find holes I missed.