Is a statutory definition

[Famspear]

Here is what PD originally wrote when he brought up the Tully case, in response to something another poster wrote:

Yes yes we know the federal government has jurisdiction over every person in the us.

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

PD, everyone can see that you were being sarcastic. You were trying to argue that the federal government does NOT have jurisdiction over every person in the United States, and that both "common sense" and the Tully case somehow "dispute" the idea that the federal government has jurisdiction over every person in the United States.

YOU WERE WRONG. The Court in Tully did not say that, and the Court in Tully did not rule that.

Except for foreigners with diplomatic immunity, etc., the general rule is that the federal government DOES have "jurisdiction" over every person in the United States -- jurisdiction in the sense in which you intended. That means: the power of Congress to enact federal criminal laws is not limited to areas within federal enclaves, the District of Columbia, or areas subject to "exclusive" federal jurisdiction.

Again, the problem in Tully was that the SPECIFIC LAW IN QUESTION used the phrase "exclusive" jurisdiction. The federal court decided that the place at which the murder occurred, although it was a military base owned by the federal government, was not a place where the federal government had retained exclusive political jurisdiction. THAT was the reason for the result in Tully -- not because of some stupid imaginary rule that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over every person in the United States.

[Pottapaug1938]

Okay, PD. For the second time, I'm calling your hand. In one paragraph, state the reason why you created this thread, and state your premise regarding federal jurisdiction over people within the United States.

[Famspear]

I don't have a copy of the specific version of the statute as reference in Tully, but I have a version printed in an earlier year. This appears to be the wording of the statute (assuming it was not amended):

Every person who commits murder--
First. Within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States [ . . . ] shall suffer death.

Obviously, the phrase "under the exclusive jurisdiction" was interpreted or assumed to modify the entire text of the sentence preceding it, and not just the phrase "any other place." Thus, although the murder took place in a "fort," it did not take place in a fort than happened to be "under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States." Another murder, committed perhaps at some other fort, somewhere else, maybe in some other state where the federal government DID retain "exclusive jurisdiction" over such other fort, would have been covered by this statute.

This is not rocket science.

[Famspear]

Okay, PD. For the second time, I'm calling your hand. In one paragraph, state the reason why you created this thread, and state your premise regarding federal jurisdiction over people within the United States.

When PD is not feverishly moving the goal posts, he's feverishly trying to pretend that he agreed with us all along or he's trying to pretend that we really agree with him.

It doesn't work.

I still want to know whether PD has a copy of the text of Tully.

Come on, PD, what are the first five words in the second full paragraph of the Court's opinion in Tully? Let's at least get on the same page (so to speak).

[NYGman]

I think he may be trying to find a copy of tully.

He just isnt grasping the fact that the statue in question required eclusive jurisdiction, and that was essentially the crux of the issue, and nothing more. This has no impact on current tax law, or provides a reason why it shouldn't apply in states. Again, for the umpteenth time the definition of states, per the code is inclusive, and states includes the 50 you know and DC.

I also eluded to this in another post, but the tax code also applies to us citizens living outside of the US, as we tax global income. So if PD moves to Canada, and earns a butt load of money, he may still have to file and pay tax in the US, Although there may be some relief for taxes paid in other counties, but that is a whole other issue.

[Famspear]

PD wrote:

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

I can't remember if I answered this question or not, but it's an interesting question.

Again, PD does not say which "jurisdiction" he is talking about.

Let's take federal criminal law. If you are indicted for a federal crime that supposedly occurred in Florida, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal district court in Orlando -- EVEN IF YOU ARE COMPLETELY INNOCENT. Hopefully, you will be acquitted by the jury or the charges will be dropped, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU COMMITTED NO FEDERAL CRIME DOES NOT CHANGE THE LAW. YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT. If your lawyer asks the Court in this case to have the case dismissed against you on the ground that the Court has no personal jurisdiction over you or no subject matter jurisdiction over the case, the request will be DENIED and, under the law, the Court will be correct in its denial.

[arayder]

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.

Well you finally got around to saying what you believe, PD.

But, the fact is you are wrong as a point of law, history and custom.

The power to tax income, in the states, is granted to Congress through Article I of the Constitution, including the Elastic Clause, and the 16th Amendment.

Whether you like it or not the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, which no state may unilaterally negate! You would make the Constitution a shambles and selfishly deny the people their right of self governance!

It's wonder no court accepted this convoluted argument when it was made by tax protesters years ago!

[Famspear]

Now, let's shatter another of PD's bubbles.

We have already seen that PD in Florida is subject to federal jurisdiction in a federal criminal case, even if he has broken no federal law.

But, suppose someone called Mary, a resident of Wisconsin, sues someone named Gustav, a resident of Orlando, Florida, for $100,000 in economic damages. The suit is filed in a federal district court in Orlando, Florida for something that is not only not a federal crime, but is not a crime at all. This is a civil dispute that grew out of Florida state contract law, having nothing to do with federal law. Mary is alleging that that Gustav breached the contract, and that Florida law governed the contract.

Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over Mary's case against Gustav?

Does the federal district court have personal jurisdiction over Gustav, the defendant?

Come on, PD, what do you think?


By the way, PD, have you found that copy of Tully yet?

[LPC]

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

Yes or no?

Yes, for the purpose of the powers given to Congress by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and the powers given to the federal judiciary by Article III.

[LPC]

Thus in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation,

Nonsense, the Bevans decision established no such thing.

The power of "exclusive legislation" exists over only the District of Columbia and military forts and other lands that have been ceded to the control of the federal government, but the power of "legislation" (non-exclusive) exists over all of the states of the United States to exercise all of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Article I, section 8, including the power to tax.

As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1820:

“The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court; emphasis added).

And, the Supreme Court later stated:

“[T]he revenues of the United States must be obtained in the same territory, from the same people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same activities, as are also reached by the states in order to support their local government.”

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107,154 (1911).

Finally:

“The United States is not a foreign sovereignty as regards the several States, but is a concurrent, and, within its jurisdiction, paramount sovereignty. Every citizen of a State is a subject of two distinct sovereignties, having concurrent jurisdiction in the State,-concurrent as to place and persons, though distinct as to subject-matter.”

Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136 (1876); Mondou v. New York, N.H., & H.R. Co., 223 U.S. 1, 57 (1912).

And see other cases cited in the Tax Protester FAQ.

[Famspear]

Thus in Bevans, the Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation,

I obviously missed that one!

How can you be so monumentally dense? PD, how do you manage to tie your shoes?

I'm still waiting for your confirmation that you have a copy of the Tully decision about which you have pontificated so cluelessly and erroneously. Come on. What are the first five words of the second paragraph of the opinion?

Come on, Einstein. In the example I gave above, does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over Mary's case against Gustav? If not, why not? Does the federal district court have personal jurisdiction over Gustav, the defendant? He's been served with the papers now, and he's in court, trying to argue that the court has no personal jurisdiction over him. Help poor Gustav out, won't you?

[JamesVincent]

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.

I wonder, in this modern time would this be a crime under the UCMJ and not under a Federal statute? It involved an active military person on a military base.

[Patriotdiscussions]

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?

Sorry as usual they got me going off topic because jurisdiction escapes them. Taxes from us citizens can be collected from them no matter where they are is correct. Sec 801 of the 1935 social security act is what makes us citizens liable. You sign a contract, you pay the fees.

[Famspear]

Sorry as usual they got me going off topic because jurisdiction escapes them. Taxes from us citizens can be collected from them no matter where they are is correct. Sec 801 of the 1935 social security act is what makes us citizens liable. You sign a contract, you pay the fees.

Wrong, as usual. In this case, only partly wrong. Federal taxes are indeed imposed on U.S. citizens, and resident aliens, no matter where they are. Regular federal income taxes are imposed not under section 801 of the 1935 Social Security Act, but (mainly) under Internal Revenue Code section 1.

[Famspear]

PS: Even the taxes that were imposed under section 801 of the Social Security Act are no longer imposed under that provision, and have not been imposed under that provision for many, many years. Those taxes are imposed under provisions of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, which is part of the Internal Revenue Code.

[Famspear]

And, no, the only person clueless about "jurisdiction" here is you, PD.

[Famspear]

And, no, PD, the imposition of federal taxes does not occur because you sign a "contract." Taxation is not a "contract."

EDIT: From the United States Supreme Court:

Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens[ . . . ]

---from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938).

[Patriotdiscussions]

Now, let's shatter another of PD's bubbles.

We have already seen that PD in Florida is subject to federal jurisdiction in a federal criminal case, even if he has broken no federal law.

But, suppose someone called Mary, a resident of Wisconsin, sues someone named Gustav, a resident of Orlando, Florida, for $100,000 in economic damages. The suit is filed in a federal district court in Orlando, Florida for something that is not only not a federal crime, but is not a crime at all. This is a civil dispute that grew out of Florida state contract law, having nothing to do with federal law. Mary is alleging that that Gustav breached the contract, and that Florida law governed the contract.

Does the federal district court have subject matter jurisdiction over Mary's case against Gustav?

Does the federal district court have personal jurisdiction over Gustav, the defendant?

Come on, PD, what do you think?


By the way, PD, have you found that copy of Tully yet?

No have not found my copy yet.

Yes the courts have jurisdiction to settle conflicts between citizens of separate sovereign states.

[Famspear]

....Yes the courts have jurisdiction to settle conflicts between citizens of separate sovereign states.

Bingo! Now, you know the answer to this question you posed earlier:

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

The answer is yes. Specifically, the U.S. district court in Orlando, Florida has personal jurisdiction over you, as a resident of Orlando, if you are sued in Federal court by someone from another state for more than $75,000 and you're properly served with papers, even if you're sued under a Florida law and even if you haven't broken any Federal law.

You ARE a glutton for punishment!

[Pottapaug1938]

Okay, PD. For the third time, I'm calling your hand. In one paragraph, state the reason why you created this thread, and state your complete premise regarding federal jurisdiction over people within the United States.