Is a statutory definition

[Pottapaug1938]

You're only looking for the answers you want to find.

You're not looking for answers you don't want to find.

See the "A4V" thread, in which someone had an insight about how "When someone has a belief/preconceived notion, then unless the information agrees with your belief then it is disregarded as false."

PD added: "Correct which is why it will take me years to find out all my answers, because I don't believe, I don't believe sov's and I don't believe you."

Three times I've called your hand, PD, and asked you for a concise statement of your motivations for starting this thread, and three times you've evaded answering. So....

If you are coming in from Boston via Route 2, take Route 21 south from Athol. When you see the signs pointing left to Greenwich Village, turn RIGHT onto Kelley Hill Road, which will become steep once you cross the Prescott town line. Near the top of the hill, Dodge Road will be the first road on your right; and after you pass the two houses near the intersection, my house is the next one on the right, just past my orchard. Drive up to the big barn, next to the house, and I'll come out and meet you.

[wserra]

If you had a lisp, would you live in Athol?

[Pottapaug1938]

If you had a lisp, would you live in Athol?

Back in the early 60s, Massachusetts had a governor named Endicott Peabody. It was said that he had four Massachusetts place names which related to him: the village of Endicott, the city of Peabody, the Town of Marblehead, and the Town of Athol.

In the mid-80s, my car broke down in Athol; and at one point my wife was telling her mother about the event. After yet another mention of Athol, my mother-in-law exclaimed "you mean that that's a real place? I thought that you just didn't like the town, so much so that you didn't want to use its real name."

[The Observer]

If you had a lisp, would you live in Athol?

Are you talking about PD? I think if he had a lisp, that would mean he would be an Athol, rather than live there.

[JamesVincent]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....

It is a period of civil war. Rebel
spaceships, striking from a hidden
base, have won their first victory
against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, rebel spies managed
to steal secret plans to the Empire's
ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an
armored space station with enough
power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents,
Princess Leia races home aboard her
starship, custodian of the stolen plans
that can save her people and restore
freedom to the galaxy....

[The Observer]

Correct which is why it will take me years to find out all my answers, because I don't believe, I don't believe sov's and I don't believe you.

Easily the most idiotic of all his statements. He comes here, presenting sovrun and tax protestor arguments, which we prove wrong. He takes issue with us deconstructing those arguments and tries to defend them, but then turns around and claims he never believed in them in the first place.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

[wserra]

Easily the most idiotic of all his statements.

That's a target-rich environment.

But people keep answering him.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm done. Until and unless PD answers my original challenge, he isn't worth even a meaningless response -- on this or any of his threads.

[LPC]

Correct which is why it will take me years to find out all my answers, because I don't believe, I don't believe sov's and I don't believe you.

Then there is something dramatically wrong with your research skills or your reading comprehension skills, or both.

It generally takes me only 10-15 minutes to refute sovereign nonsense. Usually, it's just a matter of reading the cases and statutes they cite, and finding they don't say what the sovereigns claim.

For example, take the Tully decision you want to rely on so much. I'm not sure how much weight to give a 1905 district court decision, but the time-consuming part for me was finding a copy of the decision. Once I found a copy, it was easy to see it didn't say what you claimed it said.

And, having read the case, I think that the judge left out some steps in his analysis. The proper analysis should have been (1) is there a statute giving this court jurisdiction in this case, and (2) if there is a statute, is it constitutional, and (3) if the statute relies upon the Congressional power of "exclusive legislation" over forts, etc., was this crime committed within an area that Congress over which the power of "exclusive legislation." By jumping straight to issue #3, the judge makes it appear that the power of federal courts under Article III is dependent on the power of exclusive legislation under Article I, section 8, clause 17, but that's not true. Among other things, Article III gives the federal courts jurisdiction over any case arising under the laws of the United States, so any violation of any law under any of the powers given to Congress by Article I, section 8, can give the federal courts jurisdiction. For example, prosecutions of counterfeiting will be in federal court even though the counterfeiting took place outside of the District of Columbia and outside of any fort or other place within the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

[Dr. Caligari]

so any violation of any law under any of the powers given to Congress by Article I, section 8, can give the federal courts jurisdiction. For example, prosecutions of counterfeiting will be in federal court even though the counterfeiting took place outside of the District of Columbia and outside of any fort or other place within the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

...and, more importantly for our friend, the same is true of tax evasion.

[arayder]

You're only looking for the answers you want to find.

You're not looking for answers you don't want to find.

See the "A4V" thread, in which someone had an insight about how "When someone has a belief/preconceived notion, then unless the information agrees with your belief then it is disregarded as false."

Correct which is why it will take me years to find out all my answers, because I don't believe, I don't believe sov's and I don't believe you.

I have to question the honesty of your reply, PD.

As Observer points out you cut and paste, as fact, long ago debunked sov arguments and then regurgitate the pseudo-scholarship word for word sovs use to back up those false arguments. The you tell us you don't "believe sov's".

Frankly, that's an insult to the reader's intelligence.

You have had the Constitution, statute and case law explained to you in detail. In the several threads you have started research methods have been explained to you and you have been provided with direct sources of U.S. law. Yet you say you don't believe!

I think you want to portray yourself as brave seeker of truth on a decade long journey to find the nearly unknowable so you can be justified in continuing to act the fool here.

I think you have willfully chosen to be ignorant.

The plain fact is U.S. law, history and custom is eminently knowable, even taken one bite at a time. Everybody here realizes that and wonders why it is you think you can get away with your "truth seeker" game.

[Gregg]

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.

Is this the question you asked that you refer to?

From a matter of investigative perspective the best answer is "it depends" there are many factors that go into deciding jurisdiction in a case like a murder on a military base. 99.9% of the time the Military handles the investigation and trying of people, however if it involved two civilians that were not military or otherwise engaged in employ on the base, it would most likely be handed back over to the state the base was in, and then there are other circumstances that are equally confusing and make no sense that put it in Federal Courts at times..

I gave up trying to keep it all straight years ago, and just do what the boss tells me at this point.. saves me headaches..

Given the timing, it might well pre-date the UCMJ, and I'm not sure that its predecessor, Article of War, covered it at all. A former JAG officer might be able to tell you.

[LPC]

so any violation of any law under any of the powers given to Congress by Article I, section 8, can give the federal courts jurisdiction. For example, prosecutions of counterfeiting will be in federal court even though the counterfeiting took place outside of the District of Columbia and outside of any fort or other place within the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

...and, more importantly for our friend, the same is true of tax evasion.

I was trying to lead him along gently. No unnecessarily harsh shocks.

So, understanding that counterfeiting federal currency is a crime that Congress can set punishments for, and federal courts can try, is a baby step towards understanding that other powers listed in section 8 can be handled similarly.

[Patriotdiscussions]

How would a man of common intelligence see that definition and come to the conclusion that state means florida?

a Man with common intelligence would know that there are 50 states in the United States, and that the code section is simply saying that for purposes of the code, DC is included with any mention of State. This is so they don't have to write States and DC every time, or list out the 50 states and DC every time. This also covers situations of any new states we may have in the future, however likely that may be. This code section makes it clear that any reference to States includes DC, which I would think is an easy concept to get for a man of common intelligence.

Is dc a state?

No it isn't, it is a district. But for purposes of the code, it should be included in any section referencing State, as these laws apply within the United States, which includes DC.

So you admit that no where in the code does the definition of state say florida, but we are to assume it does correct?

Why should it? Do you not know Florida is a State? If I say States, doesn't that include Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, etc. A Man with common intelligence would know this.

State has many meanings.

Delusional, befuddled, addled, frozen, and gaseous are all states as well .

[Famspear]

....Delusional, befuddled, addled, frozen, and gaseous......

In every utterance a speaker or writer unknowingly tells us a great deal about himself of which he is entirely unaware.

--Walter C. Langer, ''The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report'', p. 147 (Basic Books Inc. 1972).

[Patriotdiscussions]

Correct which is why it will take me years to find out all my answers, because I don't believe, I don't believe sov's and I don't believe you.

Then there is something dramatically wrong with your research skills or your reading comprehension skills, or both.

It generally takes me only 10-15 minutes to refute sovereign nonsense. Usually, it's just a matter of reading the cases and statutes they cite, and finding they don't say what the sovereigns claim.

For example, take the Tully decision you want to rely on so much. I'm not sure how much weight to give a 1905 district court decision, but the time-consuming part for me was finding a copy of the decision. Once I found a copy, it was easy to see it didn't say what you claimed it said.

And, having read the case, I think that the judge left out some steps in his analysis. The proper analysis should have been (1) is there a statute giving this court jurisdiction in this case, and (2) if there is a statute, is it constitutional, and (3) if the statute relies upon the Congressional power of "exclusive legislation" over forts, etc., was this crime committed within an area that Congress over which the power of "exclusive legislation." By jumping straight to issue #3, the judge makes it appear that the power of federal courts under Article III is dependent on the power of exclusive legislation under Article I, section 8, clause 17, but that's not true. Among other things, Article III gives the federal courts jurisdiction over any case arising under the laws of the United States, so any violation of any law under any of the powers given to Congress by Article I, section 8, can give the federal courts jurisdiction. For example, prosecutions of counterfeiting will be in federal court even though the counterfeiting took place outside of the District of Columbia and outside of any fort or other place within the "exclusive legislation" of Congress.

And yet I am the one not understanding? Can someone please quote me when I said the Feds did not have subject matter jurisdiction over federal laws?

Can the Feds prosecute me for jaywalking in Orlando?

Well they can not, because they do not have legislative jurisdiction to make or enforce laws for the city of Orlando.

[Famspear]

And yet I am the one not understanding? Can someone please quote me when I said the Feds did not have subject matter jurisdiction over federal laws?

I see you still haven't run out of ideas for incoherent responses.

Can the Feds prosecute me for jaywalking in Orlando?

Ah, I take it that you've been jaywalking in Orlando again! You devil! Yes, of course the Feds can prosecute you for that, because there's a super-secret-special-double-naught-spy Federal law that applies only to YOU when you jaywalk in Orlando! Better watch out!

Well they can not, because they do not have legislative jurisdiction to make or enforce laws for the city of Orlando.

Whoa! What a news flash!

[Patriotdiscussions]

I have to question the honesty of your reply, PD.

As Observer points out you cut and paste, as fact, long ago debunked sov arguments and then regurgitate the pseudo-scholarship word for word sovs use to back up those false arguments. The you tell us you don't "believe sov's".

believe what you will, but here is a fact, if I did believe them I would be out doing these things instead of being on this belief centered board playing games with your not quite sure how his brain works ass now would I? Remember how what you thought I was doing turned out to be wrong even after you stalked me over the net because your pathetic?

Frankly, that's an insult to the reader's intelligence.

if your the reader I would not worry too much, it is hard to Insult the imaginary

You have had the Constitution, statute and case law explained to you in detail. In the several threads you have started research methods have been explained to you and you have been provided with direct sources of U.S. law. Yet you say you don't believe!

of course why did I not just take your word as truth? How could I be so blind, I knew the three wise men of quatloos had all the anwsers. Because someone who knows it all is surely an open minded person able to evaluate Information correct and without bias........said no psychologist ever.

I think you want to portray yourself as brave seeker of truth on a decade long journey to find the nearly unknowable so you can be justified in continuing to act the fool here.

i act the fool and need no justification for it, odd that you do. I have no need to portray anything to anyone. I don't care what you think or believe about me, my motives or my end game. You have never paid my bills and you never will, so there is no need to impress you.

I think you have willfully chosen to be ignorant.

The plain fact is U.S. law, history and custom is eminently knowable, even taken one bite at a time. Everybody here realizes that and wonders why it is you think you can get away with your "truth seeker" game.

Listen bud, I have not the need or time to rattle off the names of the books I have read on these subjects. I do find it cute you folks your the only ones with access to books or the ability to comprehend them. Since state supreme courts get overturned, does this mean they can not comprehend the law as well?

[Famspear]

Listen bud, you've come a long way since the earlier parts of this thread -- when you tried to convince everyone that you were struggling with the idea that Florida could be a "state" under the definition of "state" in section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code.

But, PD, I want to caution you that there is only so much in the way of deep thoughts that your brain can handle. Please don't try too hard; you might hurt yourself. Remember, you're going to have to figure out how to get dressed and tie your shoes tomorrow morning.

[arayder]

PD, any books you've read already had the pages colored in.

Anytime you want to start dazzling us with your comprehensive knowledge you can begin by starting a thread with an understandable premise and conclusion, rather than a raft of fool questions.

Until that time we can take you at your word. After all you have admitted you don't know anything and are just asking questions.