Is a statutory definition

[Pottapaug1938]

So explain tully then.

I already did. Even if that weren't enough for you, a reading of the Tully case makes clear that the federal government, IN THAT INSTANCE, did not have legislative jurisdiction over the matter.

If you violate a federal law, on the other hand, reliance on the Tully case would be grounds for a malpractice suit against any attorney who used it as the basis for a defense.

[Cpt Banjo]

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."

It's also not limited to areas external to state legislative power. For example, both a State and the federal government may tax persons residing and transactions occurring within the State.

[Patriotdiscussions]

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,"
correct, it would be murder done on federal property


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.

But a federal statute does not exist does it?

Because of that jurisdiction thing I bet.

[Patriotdiscussions]

So explain tully then.

I already did. Even if that weren't enough for you, a reading of the Tully case makes clear that the federal government, IN THAT INSTANCE, did not have legislative jurisdiction over the matter.

If you violate a federal law, on the other hand, reliance on the Tully case would be grounds for a malpractice suit against any attorney who used it as the basis for a defense.

Ah so you need legislative jurisdiction to proso ute a murder on a military camp?

One would think personal and subject matter would be enough, but you say no eh?

[chronistra]

One would think personal and subject matter would be enough, but you say no eh?

What subject matter jurisdiction? That was kinda the problem.

[Pottapaug1938]

So explain tully then.

I already did. Even if that weren't enough for you, a reading of the Tully case makes clear that the federal government, IN THAT INSTANCE, did not have legislative jurisdiction over the matter.

If you violate a federal law, on the other hand, reliance on the Tully case would be grounds for a malpractice suit against any attorney who used it as the basis for a defense.

Ah so you need legislative jurisdiction to proso ute a murder on a military camp?

One would think personal and subject matter would be enough, but you say no eh?

They are essentially the same thing. The federal government must have personal and subject matter jurisdiction, under the Constitution and laws promulgated under its authority, to prosecute things like murders on military installations.

[Patriotdiscussions]

One would think personal and subject matter would be enough, but you say no eh?

What subject matter jurisdiction? That was kinda the problem.

Sorry sarcasm did not come thru.

[arayder]

Once again our goal post moving visitor has avoided discussing the debunking of his barely spoken conclusion. We have established that the provisions of the U.S. tax code are applicable in the several states.

So we move on. . . .

As usual PD attempts to muddy the water of federal territorial and subject matter jurisdiction, in part by pretending his debunkers are claiming the federal government as jurisdiction over everything, in all places, at all times.

It's the classic straw man argument.

In all this forum gamesmanship PD avoids discussing his theories of state supremacy. I suspect that when and if Coy Boy finally gets around to owning up to his own beliefs we will find that they don't comport with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

How about a little plain speaking, on your part, PD?

[Patriotdiscussions]

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.

[Pottapaug1938]

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.

Wrong -- again. Look at Dan Evans' "Tax Protestor FAQ" for many much more recent citations on the matter.

Now, arayder has just said:

"In all this forum gamesmanship PD avoids discussing his theories of state supremacy. I suspect that when and if Coy Boy finally gets around to owning up to his own beliefs we will find that they don't comport with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

How about a little plain speaking, on your part, PD?"

I'm calling your hand.

[Famspear]

PD, you keep jumping back and forth about the term "jurisdiction."

With regard to a physical area, Congress has the power to enact criminal statutes governing any physical area within the 50 states and DC and the territories (again, excluding certain areas such as certain foreign diplomatic enclaves), and even covering areas outside the USA, such as the high seas. The power of Congress to enact such criminal statutes is probably not limited to "federal enclaves" within a state. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CONGRESS HAS ACTUALLY ENACTED SUCH A WIDE-RANGING STATUTE.

The power of a federal court to decide a particular kind of criminal case (as in Tully) is limited to cases in which the federal court has something called "subject matter jurisdiction." That kind of jurisdiction can be granted to a federal court only by a statute enacted by Congress. There needs to be a federal subject matter statute, and there needs to be a federal statute that makes the conduct a federal crime. If there is no such statute, there is no such subject matter jurisdiction. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENACT SUCH A STATUTE.

In the Tully case, the federal statute that made murder (and manslaughter) a federal crime apparently was U.S. Revised Statutes section 5339 et seq. But this federal statute did not cover "just any" murder committed in "just any" physical area within a state. Based on my preliminary reading of the federal case of United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D. Mont 1905) and the earlier, related Montana state supreme court case of State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904), the federal statute did not even cover certain areas within a state that happened to be owned by the federal government. I believe the statute covered only murders, etc., committed on a U.S. "military reservation" where the federal government had ALSO expressly reserved the exclusive right to exercise political jurisdiction over the reservation.

In the case of the Ft. Missoula Military Reservation in Missoula County, Montana, the federal government actually owned the land. The land was actually a military reservation. Both the victim and the perpetrator were U.S. army soldiers. The murder took place on the "sentry beat" behind the commissary building at the fort.

But there was one more key element that had to be present for the federal statute to apply.

Apparently, under the Federal statute, for the murder to be a federal offense, the offense had to have taken place in an area where the federal government had retained EXCLUSIVE political jurisdiction. The fact that the place was a federal military reservation and was owned by the federal government was not enough.

Although the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the area WAS under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the Federal district court ruled that it was NOT under exclusive federal jurisdiction UNDER THE STATUTES IN QUESTION. So, the perpetrator got off scott free.

What was NOT at issue in the Tully case was whether Congress had the POWER, under the U.S. Constitution, to enact a law that WOULD validly make ANY murder conducted ANYwhere in Montana a federal crime. Indeed, Congress has enacted no such law to this day.

Your "understanding" of the Tully case and of the nature of federal "jurisdiction" is quite wrong.

[Famspear]

To understand Tully even better, let us think about federal taxes.

Let us suppose that neither the Internal Revenue Code nor any other federal statute had any language that made the willful failure to timely file a federal tax return a crime. The Internal Revenue Code would require the filing of a return, but would simply have no criminal penalties for failure to do so.

So, we have a federal statute that grants subject matter jurisdiction to the U.S. district courts over offenses against the United States (18 USC 3231). But, in this hypothetical, we would have no "offense against the United States." In this case, the U.S. district courts would have NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

But that has nothing to do with whether the Congress could validly enact a law that made willful failure to timely file a return a crime. Indeed, Congress has enacted such a law.

The problem in the Tully case was that Congress had not enacted a law that made murder -- in the particular circumstances of that case -- a crime. Although the Montana court based its decision on the opinion that Congress had indeed enacted such a law, the federal court ruled, essentially, that there was no such law that applied to the facts of the case. And, if you want to prosecute someone in federal court for a federal crime, it's the federal court rulings that count.

Again, if the federal court had concluded that the federal statute had simply required only that the crime be committed on a U.S. military reservation (without regard to whether the U.S. had retained "exclusive" political jurisdiction), a different result would have occurred.

[arayder]

. . .The problem in the Tully case was that Congress had not enacted a law that made murder -- in the particular circumstances of that case -- a crime. Although the Montana court based its decision on the opinion that Congress had indeed enacted such a law, the federal court ruled, essentially, that there was no such law that applied to the facts of the case. And, if you want to prosecute someone in federal court for a federal crime, it's the federal court rulings that count.

Again, if the federal court had concluded that the federal statute had simply required only that the crime be committed on a U.S. military reservation (without regard to whether the U.S. had retained "exclusive" political jurisdiction), a different result would have occurred.

Our visitor never seems to learn.

It's already been pointed out to him that case cites, especially ones from 1818, need to be checked for relevance and applicability.

This wouldn't the first time PD has been busted for citing old dead case law, whether they be overturned, modified cases, or rulings made moot by subsequent acts of Congress.

[Hyrion]

The vast majority of normal adults are not burdened with your inability to understand a relatively easy-to-understand definition of "state" found in the Internal Revenue Code.

I'd like to confirm that Famspears statement equally applies external to the US (at least in my local of Western Canada), and quite possibly Globally.

As a non-American (US Citizen for those that don't relate the automatic use of the term, I wouldn't be surprised if PD had difficulty with it) living in a non-American (The United States including the aformentioned State of Florida, a context PD has quite clearly made it known s/he does not grasp) Country also quite clearly understands what the average American means when they are talking about such terms as States or America.

I think I was taught in about grade 4 what constituted the States that made up the list "United States Of America".... was a long time ago though, so my memory of the exact grade could be faulty. It was certainly prior to grade 7.

[Famspear]

Thinking of this yet another way, for something to be a federal crime under the law of the United States of America so that the prosecution of that crime can be conducted in a U.S. district court, at least three things (and maybe more) must be present:

1. The Congress must have the constitutional POWER to enact a statute making the conduct a crime.

2. The Congress must have enacted a valid statute giving the U.S. district courts the subject matter jurisdiction.

3. The Congress must have actually ENACTED valid statute that makes the conduct a crime.

The power of Congress under category 1 may or may not be limited in some way by the Constitution. For example, Congress could not make a valid law that made the belief in Jesus Christ a crime. Such a "statute" would violate the Constitution (First Amendment).

For category 2, Congress already has enacted the statute: 31 USC 3231. There was a similar statute at the time of the murder that was the subject of the Tully case.

For category 3, in the case of Tully, there was (according to the federal court ruling) no federal statute that made the murder on the grounds of Fort Missoula a FEDERAL crime. Congress COULD have enacted such a statute and not run afoul of its category 1 power. However, Congress had no such statute on the books at the time of the murder that was the subject of the Tully case. So, category 3 was not satisfied.

[Famspear]

.....The federal government must have personal and subject matter jurisdiction, under the Constitution and laws promulgated under its authority, to prosecute things like murders on military installations.

Yeah, I'm thinking that it's different today than it was in the time of Tully.

Along this line: At the time that President Kennedy was assassinated, there was no federal statute that made killing the President of the United States a federal crime. So, if Lee Harvey Oswald had lived, and a federal grand jury had indicted him, the federal court would have thrown it out for the same reason that the federal court in Tully reached its decision: There was simply no federal statute on the books at that time that made that particular murder a federal crime.

[Famspear]

If nothing else, I suspect that if the current law, 18 USC section 1114, had been on the books at the time of the murder in the Tully case, that case would have been decided differently:

Here is section 1114 (in part):

Whoever kills or attempts to kill any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance, shall be punished—

(1) in the case of murder, as provided under section 1111 [ . . . ]

In the case of Tully, the murder occurred on a U.S. military base, so I assume that the victim, who was a U.S. soldier, was "engaged in" the "performance of official duties" at the time of the murder. Unlike the statute in Tully over a hundred years ago, nothing in section 1114 now requires the existence of "exclusive" federal political jurisdiction over the military base in question.

[Patriotdiscussions]

PD, you keep jumping back and forth about the term "jurisdiction."

With regard to a physical area, Congress has the power to enact criminal statutes governing any physical area within the 50 states and DC and the territories (again, excluding certain areas such as certain foreign diplomatic enclaves), and even covering areas outside the USA, such as the high seas. The power of Congress to enact such criminal statutes is probably not limited to "federal enclaves" within a state. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CONGRESS HAS ACTUALLY ENACTED SUCH A WIDE-RANGING STATUTE.

The power of a federal court to decide a particular kind of criminal case (as in Tully) is limited to cases in which the federal court has something called "subject matter jurisdiction." That kind of jurisdiction can be granted to a federal court only by a statute enacted by Congress. There needs to be a federal subject matter statute, and there needs to be a federal statute that makes the conduct a federal crime. If there is no such statute, there is no such subject matter jurisdiction. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO ENACT SUCH A STATUTE.

In the Tully case, the federal statute that made murder (and manslaughter) a federal crime apparently was U.S. Revised Statutes section 5339 et seq. But this federal statute did not cover "just any" murder committed in "just any" physical area within a state. Based on my preliminary reading of the federal case of United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D. Mont 1905) and the earlier, related Montana state supreme court case of State v. Tully, 31 Mont. 365, 78 P. 760 (1904), the federal statute did not even cover certain areas within a state that happened to be owned by the federal government. I believe the statute covered only murders, etc., committed on a U.S. "military reservation" where the federal government had ALSO expressly reserved the exclusive right to exercise political jurisdiction over the reservation.

In the case of the Ft. Missoula Military Reservation in Missoula County, Montana, the federal government actually owned the land. The land was actually a military reservation. Both the victim and the perpetrator were U.S. army soldiers. The murder took place on the "sentry beat" behind the commissary building at the fort.

But there was one more key element that had to be present for the federal statute to apply.

Apparently, under the Federal statute, for the murder to be a federal offense, the offense had to have taken place in an area where the federal government had retained EXCLUSIVE political jurisdiction. The fact that the place was a federal military reservation and was owned by the federal government was not enough.

Although the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the area WAS under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the Federal district court ruled that it was NOT under exclusive federal jurisdiction UNDER THE STATUTES IN QUESTION. So, the perpetrator got off scott free.

What was NOT at issue in the Tully case was whether Congress had the POWER, under the U.S. Constitution, to enact a law that WOULD validly make ANY murder conducted ANYwhere in Montana a federal crime. Indeed, Congress has enacted no such law to this day.

Your "understanding" of the Tully case and of the nature of federal "jurisdiction" is quite wrong.

Not sure how my understanding is wrong because what you said I agree with 100%.

And the bolded part IS my argument in a nut shell.

The Feds can only get exclusive legislative jurisdiction if the states cede it to them, or the Feds could of reserved it before the territory was a state,etc.

Yeah absolutely nothing in you posts proves what I have been saying wrong.

[Famspear]

Not sure how my understanding is wrong because what you said I agree with 100%.

And the bolded part IS my argument in a nut shell.

The Feds can only get exclusive legislative jurisdiction if the states cede it to them, or the Feds could of reserved it before the territory was a state,etc.

Yeah absolutely nothing in you posts proves what I have been saying wrong.

Baloney. And the bolded material was NOT your argument.

Coming back after I've already explained it to you and trying to claim that "this is what I meant all along" doesn't work, PD.

You do now, finally, have one part of it right, though: The point in Tully was that the federal government did NOT RESERVE or RETAIN exclusive jurisdiction when the territory became a state.

Do you have a copy of the text of the decision? I want to see if you and I are playing in the same stadium. What are the first five words in the second full paragraph of the Court's opinion in United States v. Tully, 140 F. 899 (D. Mont. 1905)?

[NYGman]

Not sure how my understanding is wrong because what you said I agree with 100%.

And the bolded part IS my argument in a nut shell.

The Feds can only get exclusive legislative jurisdiction if the states cede it to them, or the Feds could of reserved it before the territory was a state,etc.

Yeah absolutely nothing in you posts proves what I have been saying wrong.

So how does this relate to the fact that the definition of state under the tax code is inclusive of all 50 states and DC? Seems you are missing the plot again. The Federal government can enact and enforce tax laws across this country, even on non resedent citizens. What's your position that they can't?