LOCKED -- What is the jurisdiction of the United States?

[arayder]

Throwing PD a bone: Do some research into the difference between 'jurisdiction' and 'exclusive jurisdiction'.

But, make sure you do NOT rely on "information" from ant tax protest or sovereign source. They always get it wrong.

Good idea.

I would add that many sobs, detaxers, freemen and the like seem unable to grasp the concept of concurrent jurisdiction and the reality that the U. S. Constitution allows federal courts to hear cases that can also be taken up by state courts.

[Patriotdiscussions]

On each stone, the side facing the District of Columbia displayed the inscription "Jurisdiction of the United States"

http://www.boundarystones.org/

Duhhhhh.....

This reminds me of the signs that I used to see in restaurants that read "NO SMOKING BEYOND THIS POINT". Of course, every point in the universe is, by definition, a point "beyond this point." From reading the sign, I never understood exactly which area of the restaurant was intended to be designated as the "no smoking" area. Was it the area on the side of the sign where the sign could actually be read? Or, was it the area on the side of the sign where the sign itself could not be read? Was it some third area?

Back to the topic: "Patriotdiscussions," you are up to your usual mindless trollery, I see.

Here's how it may well work:

1. First, YOU tell US what YOU think the inscription means. You will almost surely come up with a stupid answer based on a nonsensical belief about the word "jurisdiction", etc.

2. Then, we will humiliate you yet again by explaining why your stupid answer is wrong.

3. Then, for the umpteenth time, you will attempt to move the goal posts.

4. Then, at some point, the thread will be closed.

When a person is born in the United States, was he born in a state or a federal territory?

[arayder]

When a person is born in the United States, was he born in a state or a federal territory?

One can be born in both. I was. Currently I am a citizen of Kentucky and the United States.

[Famspear]

When a person is born in the United States, was he born in a state or a federal territory?

Yes.

Or, maybe no.

Why do you ask?

[AndyK]

PD's last post seems to be a goalpost mover.

Unless he goes back to his original question, the thread gets locked.

[arayder]

PD's last post seems to be a goalpost mover.

Unless he goes back to his original question, the thread gets locked.

It has been my experience that a lot of sovs, detaxers and freemen like to play professor by using their version of the socratic method. In this case the OP's second question seems to presume that one can't be a citizen of the U.S. and a state.

By asking the presumptuous question the OP, in effect, states his premise (that the federal government has no jurisdiction outside D.C.) as his conclusion.

It's the oldest trick in their coloring book.

[bmxninja357]

Guess you best not ask him about dual citizenship.....

(Had to open that can of worms)

Peace
Ninj

[Patriotdiscussions]

PD's last post seems to be a goalpost mover.

Unless he goes back to his original question, the thread gets locked.

Hardly a goalpost mover, just trying to figure out territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

We already know they have no personal jurisdiction over state citizens, and limited subject matter jurisdiction.

[Famspear]

PD's last post seems to be a goalpost mover.

Unless he goes back to his original question, the thread gets locked.

Hardly a goalpost mover, just trying to figure out territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

We already know they have no personal jurisdiction over state citizens, and limited subject matter jurisdiction.

No, you're not trying to figure anything out.

Who is "we"? And who is "they"?

You're spouting gibberish.

What a surprise.

[Patriotdiscussions]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

[LPC]

just trying to figure out territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

We already know they have no personal jurisdiction over state citizens, and limited subject matter jurisdiction.

May I be the first to say: Wrong.

Personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are two entirely different concepts, but a court has to have both. Having subject matter jurisdiction without personal jurisdiction (when personal jurisdiction is needed) is useless.

But "jurisdiction" is a judicial concept, not a legislative concept. The section of the Constitution authorizing the District of Columbia says that Congress shall have the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" and says nothing about "jurisdiction."

And, according to Article VI of the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress are the "supreme Law of the Land," and that phrase would be meaningless if the laws of the United States enacted within the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution could not be enforced against those who lived within the lands of the United States.

But the actual words of the Constitution are irrelevant, because controlling legal authority is found in the scratchings of 18th century stonemasons.</sarcasm>

[AndyK]

...
just trying to figure out territorial jurisdiction of the United States. (1)

We already know they have no personal jurisdiction over state citizens, and limited subject matter jurisdiction. (2)

(1) Simple: any and all lands within any of the 50 states plus possessions and territories and the District of Columbia. Some of these are exclusive jurisdictions of the federal government and others are concurrent with state, local, territorial, etc governments.

(2) KNOW ??? You may know that, but you are wrong -- totally wrong -- with respect to state citizens and only partially correct with respect to subject matter. Try checking back to the 14th Amendment as a starter.

Also, just to throw another monkey wrench into the gears of your brain, what about jurisdiction over tourists, individuals with work visas, resident aliens, members of foreign embassies, passengers on American flag vessels and aircraft, and foreign vessels and aircraft in American territorial waters or American air space? And how do those cases differ from "state citizens" and what about "state citizens" who travel to or through another state or into the District of Columbia?

[Famspear]

PD, the terms "personal jurisdiction" and "subject matter jurisdiction" relate to the powers of courts of law - not to the United States as a whole.

There is no such thing as a "state citizen" in the sense that I believe you are using the term. There is such a thing as a "state citizen" in the sense that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the "jurisdiction" thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

In case you're going there, I'll cut you off at the pass: You cannot be a "state citizen" without being a United States citizen. If you were born here and you're not a foreigner with diplomatic immunity, generally you are a United States citizen and you're subject to all U.S. federal and state laws.

Further, even if you're a foreigner, you are subject to U.S. federal and state laws (unless you have diplomatic immunity), if you live here.

Further, even if you are a foreigner and you've never even been to the United States, you are still subject to certain American laws, such as certain provisions of the U.S. federal income tax laws.

[Famspear]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

That's a nut job site.

Just about anything from a nut job would "seem legit enough" to you, right?

[arayder]

We already know they have no personal jurisdiction over state citizens. . .

That is not entirely correct. In some exceptional circumstances, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Section 4 grant a federal court personal jurisdiction when the law of the state in which that court sits would not.

I suspect you are using the term "state citizen" as code to deny the reach and authority granted the federal government by the 14th amendment and subsequent case law.

[AndyK]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

1 - SupremeLaw.org is, in fact, the Internet home of Paul Andrew Mitchell; one of the world-class nutjobs of the TP / Sovereign / anti-government crowd.

2 - Yes the report is legitimate but it addresses ONLY Jurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States -- that is specific areas which states have ceded to the federal government and relinquished the states' jurisdiction. It has absolutely nothing to do with the overall concept of federal jurisdiction.

[LPC]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

Is there something in those 321 pages that is actually relevant to your fantasies?

According to the report, it is "a general survey of the jurisdictional status of all federally owned real property in the 48 States, and a detailed survey of the status of individual such properties in the State of Virginia, Kansas, and California."

How would such a report be relevant to the "jurisdictional status" of real property that is NOT federally owned?

And what does this have to do with the "jurisdiction" of the District of Columbia, only some of which (and not all of which) is federally owned?

You're flinging crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.

[arayder]

This seems to explain it, but is this a nut job site?

http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/fedjur/fedjur2.htm

The report seems legit enough.

That's a nut job site.

Just about anything from a nut job would "seem legit enough" to you, right?

Well, one problem is that the report merely a report and is dated 1957.

Are you up to date on the question you, yourself claim have answered?

[Famspear]

And, the nut in question is of course Mitchell Paul Modeleski, also known as Paul Andrew Mitchell.

See:

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=9831&start=100

On or about July 15, 2014, he was declared mentally incompetent to stand trial in his own federal criminal case, United States v. Modeleski, case no. 14-CR-027F, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.

[arayder]

Let's cut to the chase.

Back on September 8, 2014 PD told us, "Geographically the 'United States' is ten miles by ten miles, along with any land aqquired for boatyards,etc plus any territories."

That is simply incorrect.

Now, over a month later PD wants to return to the subject this time using more obfuscation than employed on his earlier visit.

If what I suspect PD is trying to imply about the authority of the federal government were true there wouldn't be a federal post office down the street from me and I could counterfeit U.S. currency with impunity knowing that as long as I did so outside D.C. I couldn't be touched by federal law enforcement and the federal courts.

PD's ultimate conclusion, which he seems unwilling to state, is simply absurd.