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

[The Observer]

There once was a troll named "PD"
Like all trolls, he dealt with facts loosely.
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, without context you see,
Makes a fool out of him quite nicely.

Ok, absolute proof that Fampsear is contagious and can instigate an pandemic. Time for a quarantine!

[Famspear]

The Observer wrote:

Ok, absolute proof that Fampsear is contagious and can instigate an pandemic. Time for a quarantine!

It's far too late for that now!!!



(ahem... clearing my throat.....)

Examples of application of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code:

An alien (I.e., not a U.S. citizen) who is lawfully present in the United States would be an "applicable individual" (unless he or she qualifies for the "religious conscience" exemption or the "health care sharing ministry" exemption or the "incarcerated individual" exemption).

A U.S. citizen would be an "applicable individual" (again, unless he or she qualifies for at least one of the exemptions described above). Not "claiming" to be a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make a person not be a U.S. citizen. Further, refusing to accept that you are a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make you not be a U.S. citizen.

Further, if you are a U.S. citizen, merely renouncing your citizenship would not necessarily make you "not be a citizen." There are specific rules about that -- generally involving a requirement that you physically leave the United States and renounce your citizenship while not in the United States.

[JamesVincent]

Further, if you are a U.S. citizen, merely renouncing your citizenship would not necessarily make you "not be a citizen." There are specific rules about that -- generally involving a requirement that you physically leave the United States and renounce your citizenship while not in the United States.

They just raised the rate for denouncing your citizenship too, for all those people who wanted to leave to avoid those pesky taxes.

[arayder]

Not "claiming" to be a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make a person not be a U.S. citizen. Further, refusing to accept that you are a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make you not be a U.S. citizen.

Further, if you are a U.S. citizen, merely renouncing your citizenship would not necessarily make you "not be a citizen." There are specific rules about that -- generally involving a requirement that you physically leave the United States and renounce your citizenship while not in the United States.

A several years ago I found a site which listed hundreds of lame legal arguments Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments http://archive.adl.org/mwd/suss1.html

At the time I was surprised at the number of insane arguments used by detaxers, tax protesters and sovereign citizens. I am no longer surprised.

The site has sections entitled "Renouncing or denying US citizenship", "Claiming to be a sovereign" and "Denies being a 14th Amendment citizen" in which one can find cases where misguided individuals unsuccessfully claimed they weren't "14 Amendment citizens".

Judging from the number of cases listed in 1999 and the prevalence of similar bs on the internet since then there has to be a new boat load of cases in which arguments just like PD's have been dismissed as a matter of settled law.

[JamesVincent]

I was always partial to this one:

[grixit]

Well folks? Should we get out the forehead stamp? Or failing that, should Patheticdigressions be put on moderation where no posts will be approved until they contain answers to all the questions they've been ignoring?

[Patriotdiscussions]

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Yep, citizens we are.

[arayder]

Well, I have to give you credit, PD, for at least including the link so we can see that the inference you intended to give from your selective quotation of the Maxwell v. Dow is disingenuous.

When we read the entire case we see an entirely different meaning. Indeed reading just the syllabus shows us you are yet again treating us to a biased and inaccurate reading of case law.

-------------------

"The decision In Hurtado v. California,110 U. S. 516, that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitution as a citizen of the United States and do not deprive him of his liberty without due process of law.

Whether a trial in criminal cases not capital shall be by a jury composed of eight instead of twelve jurors, and whether, in case of an infamous crime, a person shall be only liable to be tried after presentment or indictment by a grand jury are proper to be determined by the citizens of each State for themselves, and do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so long as all persons within the jurisdiction of the State are made liable to be proceeded against by the same kind of procedure, and to have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the law is secured to them."

---------------------

PD, you are so off base that one has to wonder if you did not intend to to deceive the reader.

If you had done your due diligence and Shepardized the case you would have known that in subsequent rulings the Court incorporated a far greater portion of the Bill of Rights against the states. In essence you have, once again, portrayed old, dead case law as being current.

Besides not reading and understanding all of Maxwell v. Dow your next mistake was failing to realize that the points of law ruled in 1900 case may have been modified or reversed during the 20th century.

[noblepa]

IANAL, but, reading that case, it seems to me that the primary issue was whether or not a conviction for robbery by a jury of eight, rather than twelve jurors, constituted a violation of due process. If my reading is correct, then it seems to this (again IANAL) reader that the quote cited by PD is merely dicta and not part of the ruling.

If I'm even close to being correct, I don't see what point PD is trying to make with that quote.

Also, the point about this case being modified or overruled entirely by later statues or decisions is important. I'm reminded of some of the Sovcits who love to quote the Dred Scot decision to make some point. That is one of the most infamous SCOTUS rulings ever and has long since been overturned.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
If I'm even close to being correct, I don't see what point PD is trying to make with that quote. ...

The point is to go back to his legal-mythology sycophants and point and giggle at how he is manipulating the Quatloosians.

[Dr. Caligari]

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Yep, citizens we are.

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

PD,
Where is the Supreme Court's decision in Conner v. US? Why won't you show it to us? Could it be because you are a prevaricating, mendacious liar?

[arayder]

...
If I'm even close to being correct, I don't see what point PD is trying to make with that quote. ...

The point is to go back to his legal-mythology sycophants and point and giggle at how he is manipulating the Quatloosians.

I believe our friend is hinting at the cherished sovcit pipe dream that one may reject one's U.S. citizenship while retaining state citizenship and thereby escape the authority of federal statues and the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Our friend started this tread by suggesting the validity of the long ago disproven notion that the federal government has no authority outside the District of Columbia.

If his posting behavior holds true to form we will be treated to a few more pointless posts followed by another pointless thread. This passes for substance in the subculture of legal-mythology sycophants Judge Roy Bean made reference to.

[arayder]

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Yep, citizens we are.

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

PD,
Where is the Supreme Court's decision in Conner v. US? Why won't you show it to us? Could it be because you are a prevaricating, mendacious liar?

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion. - Proverbs 28:1

[Patriotdiscussions]

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federa ... /case.html

Yep, citizens we are.

You can beat the willful part by showing you relied on Supreme Court cases like Conner vs. us, etc.

PD,
Where is the Supreme Court's decision in Conner v. US? Why won't you show it to us? Could it be because you are a prevaricating, mendacious liar?

You got me, I thought it was a supreme case and was wrong. Your A genius sir, keep up the good work.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The Observer wrote:

Ok, absolute proof that Fampsear is contagious and can instigate an pandemic. Time for a quarantine!

It's far too late for that now!!!



(ahem... clearing my throat.....)

Examples of application of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code:

An alien (I.e., not a U.S. citizen) who is lawfully present in the United States would be an "applicable individual" (unless he or she qualifies for the "religious conscience" exemption or the "health care sharing ministry" exemption or the "incarcerated individual" exemption).

A U.S. citizen would be an "applicable individual" (again, unless he or she qualifies for at least one of the exemptions described above). Not "claiming" to be a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make a person not be a U.S. citizen. Further, refusing to accept that you are a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make you not be a U.S. citizen.

Further, if you are a U.S. citizen, merely renouncing your citizenship would not necessarily make you "not be a citizen." There are specific rules about that -- generally involving a requirement that you physically leave the United States and renounce your citizenship while not in the United States.

To be an expat that is correct.

However under the laws of nations there are conditions set out to validate a citizen quiting his country and social contract.

I have a meeting with Bryan Garner this week to help clear up any misunderstanding I might have with the statutory interpretation of the definitions of state and United States which oddly enough are in para meteria with fed and state statutes.

He did send me this because of my questions on the word shall.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_ar ... don_shall/

[Patriotdiscussions]

Well, I have to give you credit, PD, for at least including the link so we can see that the inference you intended to give from your selective quotation of the Maxwell v. Dow is disingenuous.

When we read the entire case we see an entirely different meaning. Indeed reading just the syllabus shows us you are yet again treating us to a biased and inaccurate reading of case law.

-------------------

"The decision In Hurtado v. California,110 U. S. 516, that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitution as a citizen of the United States and do not deprive him of his liberty without due process of law.

Whether a trial in criminal cases not capital shall be by a jury composed of eight instead of twelve jurors, and whether, in case of an infamous crime, a person shall be only liable to be tried after presentment or indictment by a grand jury are proper to be determined by the citizens of each State for themselves, and do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so long as all persons within the jurisdiction of the State are made liable to be proceeded against by the same kind of procedure, and to have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the law is secured to them."

---------------------

PD, you are so off base that one has to wonder if you did not intend to to deceive the reader.

If you had done your due diligence and Shepardized the case you would have known that in subsequent rulings the Court incorporated a far greater portion of the Bill of Rights against the states. In essence you have, once again, portrayed old, dead case law as being current.

Besides not reading and understanding all of Maxwell v. Dow your next mistake was failing to realize that the points of law ruled in 1900 case may have been modified or reversed during the 20th century.

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Well, I have to give you credit, PD, for at least including the link so we can see that the inference you intended to give from your selective quotation of the Maxwell v. Dow is disingenuous.

When we read the entire case we see an entirely different meaning. Indeed reading just the syllabus shows us you are yet again treating us to a biased and inaccurate reading of case law.

-------------------

"The decision In Hurtado v. California,110 U. S. 516, that the words "due process of law " in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States do not necessarily require an indictment by a grand jury in a prosecution by a State for murder, has been often affirmed, and is now reaffirmed and applied to this case.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal Government.

The trial of a person accused as a criminal by a jury of only eight persons instead of twelve, and his subsequent imprisonment after conviction, do not abridge his privileges and immunities under the Constitution as a citizen of the United States and do not deprive him of his liberty without due process of law.

Whether a trial in criminal cases not capital shall be by a jury composed of eight instead of twelve jurors, and whether, in case of an infamous crime, a person shall be only liable to be tried after presentment or indictment by a grand jury are proper to be determined by the citizens of each State for themselves, and do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution so long as all persons within the jurisdiction of the State are made liable to be proceeded against by the same kind of procedure, and to have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the law is secured to them."

---------------------

PD, you are so off base that one has to wonder if you did not intend to to deceive the reader.

If you had done your due diligence and Shepardized the case you would have known that in subsequent rulings the Court incorporated a far greater portion of the Bill of Rights against the states. In essence you have, once again, portrayed old, dead case law as being current.

Besides not reading and understanding all of Maxwell v. Dow your next mistake was failing to realize that the points of law ruled in 1900 case may have been modified or reversed during the 20th century.

Lol. What is funny is you are thinking I posted that quote as case law or precendent. When in fact I quoted it for the words included in the quote.

What my quote says is the rights associated with the first 8 amendments do not apply to us citizens who only have privileges and immunities.

But please feel free to say it means something different, I would love to hear it.

I also find it funny you believe the court enlarged our unalienable rights... Lmfao

[Patriotdiscussions]

14.25. Admit that the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence, in section 3A Am Jur 2d §2689 defines "U.S. citizens" under federal statutes as follows:

3C Am Jur 2d §2689, Who is born in United States and subject to United States jurisdiction "A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his or her birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign, even though another country provides all governmental services within the territory, and the territory is subsequently ceded to the other country."

Admit that Black's law dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1473 defines the term "territories" as follows:

"Territory: A part of a country separated from the rest, and subject to a particular jurisdiction. Geographical area under the jurisdiction of another country or sovereign power.

A portion of the United States not within the limits of any state, which has not yet been admitted as a state of the Union, but is organized with a separate legislature, and with executive and judicial powers appointed by the President."



Where is a us citizen born again?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Perhaps you have proof that florida gave up sovereignty and that the federal government is sovereign over florida? Which would mean dc has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over florida.

Are you guys stating that?

[arayder]

The Observer wrote:

Ok, absolute proof that Fampsear is contagious and can instigate an pandemic. Time for a quarantine!

It's far too late for that now!!!



(ahem... clearing my throat.....)

Examples of application of section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code:

An alien (I.e., not a U.S. citizen) who is lawfully present in the United States would be an "applicable individual" (unless he or she qualifies for the "religious conscience" exemption or the "health care sharing ministry" exemption or the "incarcerated individual" exemption).

A U.S. citizen would be an "applicable individual" (again, unless he or she qualifies for at least one of the exemptions described above). Not "claiming" to be a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make a person not be a U.S. citizen. Further, refusing to accept that you are a U.S. citizen would not, in and of itself, make you not be a U.S. citizen.

Further, if you are a U.S. citizen, merely renouncing your citizenship would not necessarily make you "not be a citizen." There are specific rules about that -- generally involving a requirement that you physically leave the United States and renounce your citizenship while not in the United States.

To be an expat that is correct.

However under the laws of nations there are conditions set out to validate a citizen quiting his country and social contract.

I have a meeting with Bryan Garner this week to help clear up any misunderstanding I might have with the statutory interpretation of the definitions of state and United States which oddly enough are in para meteria with fed and state statutes.

He did send me this because of my questions on the word shall.

http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/mag_ar ... don_shall/

Goodness me, ole son, you are like a fly on a big ole cow turd. You just don't where to lite.

The "laws of nations", whether you are talking about the old book or something else, is not the supreme law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme saw of the land!

One more time. . .the Constitution of the United States is the supreme saw of the land!

That you would muddy the water over questions of style rather than address settled case law regarding citizenship says a lot.