Is a statutory definition

[NYGman]

At least I remembered the 341 part, just thought it a reg not a code section, memories...

I'm glad it was you that had to deal with that particular provision, and not me.

reclassing Gain on the sale of a collapsible corp from Cap Gain to ordinary, to see if it applied. I don't remember much more... and for some reason, I don't think it applied, but don't want to think about it further.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

And how exactly do you think Tully is relevant?

He is of the opinion that the us has jurisdiction over all people and places inside the United States. Which according to that case is not true.

[Patriotdiscussions]

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

And how exactly do you think Tully is relevant?

Since PD will never give you a coherent or on-point answer, I will. The Tully case said "(t)o give a federal court jurisdiction to try a person for a criminal offense, on the ground that it was committed within a fort or military reservation, such fort or reservation must have been established by law...."

In other words, the Tully case is completely irrelevant to his premise -- such as it is. It has nothing to do with Federal jurisdiction as a general principle. PD has once again gone quote-mining, and is now energetically waving a yellow rock in the air and proclaiming that he has struck gold, when in truth he has only fools' gold in his hand.

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

[NYGman]

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

And how exactly do you think Tully is relevant?

He is of the opinion that the us has jurisdiction over all people and places inside the United States. Which according to that case is not true.

That is not exactly what Tully says. Why don't you read the whole case, summarize the facts for us, outline the specific issue the court is addressing and provide us with the courts holding.

You will see, it is not what you think it is, and has no bearing on a definition of State, per the tax code, and no real relevance to this discussion.

You may also want to read about separation of powers, that may help you understand what the Federal government can do, and what states can do.

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

For What purpose? States have rights and the Federal government has rights. Some things are regulated by the federal government, others by states.

Federal Tax code is Federal in nature, State tax code is State. New Jersey can not tax a Florida resident, unless there is some connection to NJ, The Federal Government can tax everyone, with a connection to the United states.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Sure let us say that I buy that in federal code states mean all states, can you tell me why state statutes definition of state do not include the state the statutes are from, only dc? Feel free to quote your states statute.

Good grief.

Your English is not specifically too good this morning, but I'll try to answer what I believe is your question -- or, rather, your apparent assertion.

You are wrong.

In state statutes, the definition of "state" is not generally limited to the "District of Columbia."

If you believe I'm wrong, then support your argument with a coherent explanation.

(38) “State” means a state or possession of the United States, and, for the purposes of this chapter, includes the District of Columbia.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 22.01.html

This is from a florida statute dealing with drivers licenses.
1. Why include a definition of state in a state statute?
2. This statue is of course dealing with state drivers license, how would any of it apply to a state besides florida or to dc?
3. Not one definition of state in florida statutes says states means florida, or even STATE OF FLORIDA, they ALL include dc.

Of course it would be easy to prove me wrong, just quote and link your states statutory definition of state.

[Pottapaug1938]

The only thing that disputes that you besides common sense is us v tully 140 fed. 899

And how exactly do you think Tully is relevant?

He is of the opinion that the us has jurisdiction over all people and places inside the United States. Which according to that case is not true.

Once again, you are blatantly mischaracterizing someone's post.

[Patriotdiscussions]

That is not exactly what Tully says. Why don't you read the whole case, summarize the facts for us, outline the specific issue the court is addressing and provide us with the courts holding.

You will see, it is not what you think it is, and has no bearing on a definition of State, per the tax code, and no real relevance to this discussion.

You may also want to read about separation of powers, that may help you understand what the Federal government can do, and what states can do.

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

For What purpose? States have rights and the Federal government has rights. Some things are regulated by the federal government, others by states.

Federal Tax code is Federal in nature, State tax code is State. New Jersey can not tax a Florida resident, unless there is some connection to NJ, The Federal Government can tax everyone, with a connection to the United states.[/quote]

Does the federal government have jurisdiction over me in Orlando florida if I am not breaking any federal laws?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Once again, you are blatantly mischaracterizing someone's post.[/quote]
If not on federal property, and not breaking federal laws, does the us have jurisdiction over me?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Tully was convicted of murder and sentenced to hang, state supreme overturned since it was on a military camp, they kicked it to the Feds, Feds let him go because they did NOT have jurisdiction.

Pretty simple really.

[NYGman]

(38) “State” means a state or possession of the United States, and, for the purposes of this chapter, includes the District of Columbia.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 22.01.html

This is from a florida statute dealing with drivers licenses.
1. Why include a definition of state in a state statute?
2. This statue is of course dealing with state drivers license, how would any of it apply to a state besides florida or to dc?
3. Not one definition of state in florida statutes says states means florida, or even STATE OF FLORIDA, they ALL include dc.

Of course it would be easy to prove me wrong, just quote and link your states statutory definition of state.

Can you drive in Florida with a Georgia Drivers Licence? Maybe this is why they have an inclusive definition to avoid doubt. Don't see why this is relevant though

[Pottapaug1938]

(38) “State” means a state or possession of the United States, and, for the purposes of this chapter, includes the District of Columbia.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 22.01.html

This is from a florida statute dealing with drivers licenses.
1. Why include a definition of state in a state statute?

Because Florida, like other states, has to deal with issues such as when citizens of other states move to Florida and wish to transfer their licenses without going through road tests.

2. This statue is of course dealing with state drivers license, how would any of it apply to a state besides florida or to dc?

Easy. If a certain state is part of the federal union, it falls within the purview of this statute, within Florida.

3. Not one definition of state in florida statutes says states means florida, or even STATE OF FLORIDA, they ALL include dc.

Once again, you show your true colors. The very definition which you cite proves that Florida falls within the law's definition of "state"; and the fact that you think that "Florida" is somehow legally different from "STATE OF FLORIDA" only confirms your ignorance.

[Famspear]

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

You're reading tax protester literature, possibly from Larry Becraft's web site, possibly copied from somewhere else.

Since you don't specify which meaning of the term "jurisdiction" you are using, I'll specify one for you.

If by "jurisdiction" you mean the constitutional authority of Congress to enact criminal statutes that apply in all the fifty states and the District of Columbia, for example, the short answer is Yes. Those statutes would apply to all people except, for example, the British ambassador to the United States who has something called diplomatic immunity. The law might not apply inside a foreign embassy, but that's a exception, too.

If you mean the authority of the President and the rest of the Executive Branch of government to enforce those laws in the fifty states and DC, then the answer is Yes.

If you mean the authority of the federal courts to decide actual cases or controversies regarding those laws, the answer is Yes.

Even if you are not on federal property and you are not breaking federal law, a federal court could have jurisdiction over you (something called "personal jurisdiction") if you are a defendant in certain kinds of lawsuits (non-criminal matters).

[Patriotdiscussions]

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

You're reading tax protester literature, possibly from Larry Becraft's web site, possibly copied from somewhere else.

Since you don't specify which meaning of the term "jurisdiction" you are using, I'll specify one for you.

If by "jurisdiction" you mean the constitutional authority of Congress to enact criminal statutes that apply in all the fifty states and the District of Columbia, for example, the short answer is Yes. Those statutes would apply to all people except, for example, the British ambassador to the United States who has something called diplomatic immunity. The law might not apply inside a foreign embassy, but that's a exception, too.

If you mean the authority of the President and the rest of the Executive Branch of government to enforce those laws in the fifty states and DC, then the answer is Yes.

If you mean the authority of the federal courts to decide actual cases or controversies regarding those laws, the answer is Yes.

Even if you are not on federal property and you are not breaking federal law, a federal court could have jurisdiction over you (something called "personal jurisdiction") if you are a defendant in certain kinds of lawsuits (non-criminal matters).

So explain tully then.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

You're reading tax protester literature, possibly from Larry Becraft's web site, possibly copied from somewhere else.

Since you don't specify which meaning of the term "jurisdiction" you are using, I'll specify one for you.

If by "jurisdiction" you mean the constitutional authority of Congress to enact criminal statutes that apply in all the fifty states and the District of Columbia, for example, the short answer is Yes. Those statutes would apply to all people except, for example, the British ambassador to the United States who has something called diplomatic immunity. The law might not apply inside a foreign embassy, but that's a exception, too.

If you mean the authority of the President and the rest of the Executive Branch of government to enforce those laws in the fifty states and DC, then the answer is Yes.

If you mean the authority of the federal courts to decide actual cases or controversies regarding those laws, the answer is Yes.

Even if you are not on federal property and you are not breaking federal law, a federal court could have jurisdiction over you (something called "personal jurisdiction") if you are a defendant in certain kinds of lawsuits (non-criminal matters).

I'm going to say murder is a federal crime on the fed list, can they prosecute me for the killing of a civilian at the mall?

[Famspear]

I'm not sure whether Larry Becraft wrote this himself, but on his web site, he has a page that includes the following verbiage:

In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, one being that of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory.

The problem with the quote is mainly found in the last two words: "and territory." With those two words, the statement is false.

Federal jurisdiction is indeed "limited", but it is not limited to "areas external to state .... territory."

Becraft (or whoever wrote this material on his web site) states as follows:

The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union, and this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases.

If by "territorial jurisdiction" the author means the constitutional powers to enact (legislative power vested in Congress), to enforce (executive power vested in the President), and to interpret (judicial power vested in the federal courts) federal statutes, that quoted statement is utterly false.

And NO, there are not "literally hundreds of cases" that contain holdings for that supposed "proposition of law."

[Patriotdiscussions]

Does the us have jurisdiction over all people and places in the us?

Yes or no?

You're reading tax protester literature, possibly from Larry Becraft's web site, possibly copied from somewhere else.

Since you don't specify which meaning of the term "jurisdiction" you are using, I'll specify one for you.

If by "jurisdiction" you mean the constitutional authority of Congress to enact criminal statutes that apply in all the fifty states and the District of Columbia, for example, the short answer is Yes. Those statutes would apply to all people except, for example, the British ambassador to the United States who has something called diplomatic immunity. The law might not apply inside a foreign embassy, but that's a exception, too.

If you mean the authority of the President and the rest of the Executive Branch of government to enforce those laws in the fifty states and DC, then the answer is Yes.

If you mean the authority of the federal courts to decide actual cases or controversies regarding those laws, the answer is Yes.

Even if you are not on federal property and you are not breaking federal law, a federal court could have jurisdiction over you (something called "personal jurisdiction") if you are a defendant in certain kinds of lawsuits (non-criminal matters).

Interesting, so without subject matter or territorial jurisdiction they still can prosecute you is what your saying?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I'm not sure whether Larry Becraft wrote this himself, but on his web site, he has a page that includes the following verbiage:

In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, one being that of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory.

The problem with the quote is mainly found in the last two words: "and territory." With those two words, the statement is false.

Federal jurisdiction is indeed "limited", but it is not limited to "areas external to state .... territory."

Becraft (or whoever wrote this material on his web site) states as follows:

The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and in the territories and insular possessions of the United States. However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the States within the American Union, and this proposition of law is supported by literally hundreds of cases.

If by "territorial jurisdiction" the author means the constitutional powers to enact (legislative power vested in Congress), to enforce (executive power vested in the President), and to interpret (judicial power vested in the federal courts) federal statutes, that quoted statement is utterly false.

And NO, there are not "literally hundreds of cases" that contain holdings for that supposed "proposition of law."

Ah so your saying the Feds have territorial jurisdiction in the sovereign states on land NOT cided, reserved,etc to the Feds?

Are you sure about that?

Explain tully in that light then

[Famspear]

I'm going to say murder is a federal crime on the fed list, can they prosecute me for the killing of a civilian at the mall?

I believe that only murder in certain specific cases is a federal crime on the "fed list," but IF a federal statute were to cover killing of an ordinary civilian at the mall, then yes, the feds COULD constitutionally prosecute you for that.

[Famspear]

Ah so your [sic] saying the Feds have territorial jurisdiction in the sovereign states on land NOT cided [sic], reserved,etc to the Feds?

Are you sure about that?

Explain tully in that light then

We'll get to Tully later.

The answer to your question is that federal court jurisdiction with respect to a federal criminal statute is not dependent on where the criminal act occurred. The Feds have jurisdiction to punish crimes SPECIFIED UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES on any land within the fifty states and DC (except maybe inside a foreign embassy, etc.).

And, yes, I'm sure about that.

[Famspear]

Interesting, so without subject matter or territorial jurisdiction they still can prosecute you is what your saying?

No, subject matter jurisdiction in a Federal criminal case is granted to the U.S. District Courts, under 18 USC section 3231:

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States. [ . . . ]

The term "territorial jurisdiction" does not have much significance in federal criminal law. The federal statutes can punish not only acts committed in the 50 states and DC and territories, but also certain acts (such as certain kinds of piracy) committed on the high seas, outside of the physical area of any country.

EDIT: Part of your problem, PD, is that you, like many others before you, keep throwing the term "jurisdiction" around without really understanding all the different meanings of the term. I'm trying to answer your questions, but sometimes it's hard to tell which kind of "jurisdiction" you're thinking of when you ask a question -- because you're not being very clear.