Sherry Jackson's Appeal (Continued)

[LPC]

The problem you [Prof] are having I think is you think District means that it is in the State. The District only COVERS counties in the State per venue.

Question 1: Let's suppose I am standing in a courtroom in the federal courthouse in Atlanta, Georgia, which is in Fulton County and the Northern District of Georgia. Where am I? Am I "in" (check all that apply):

a. The United States of America.
b. The state of Georgia.
c. The Northern District of Georgia.
d. The county of Fulton.
e. The city of Atlanta.
f. All of the above.

Question 2: Starting from my position in question 1, I walk out of the courtroom and out of the building and stand on the public street outside the courthouse. Where am I? Am I "in" (check all that apply):

a. The United States of America.
b. The state of Georgia.
c. The Northern District of Georgia.
d. The county of Fulton.
e. The city of Atlanta.
f. All of the above.

My answer would be "f" for both questions, but I suspect that AIS and DBD might have different answers, which is bizarre.

[Prof]

Prof

The problem you are having I think is you think District means that it is in the State. The District only COVERS counties in the State per venue.

District courts cover certain geographic areas within it's domain but it doesn't necessarily have subject matter jurisdiction in that area but parts of the area they very well could have jurisdiction. I mean if you were correct Congress could pass a law for 20 mph speed limit in every State or selected States and they could criminally prosecute you in District Court.

I would suggest reading Bowen. This is not my argument but it starting to sound like it so I will give a rest. I am not on anyone's side.

The point is I KNOW that the District is also in the State. I also KNOW that some Districts are coterminus with the State (see, e.g., SC, RI, DE, MT, VT, MA WY, MT, HI, and so on). Your point is silly. No one, except the fringe, has ever suggested the argument you put forth -- no court, constitutional scholar, etc. The words of the Constitution are clear. Why can't you just read the provisions? A District Court is a geographical "entity" having the jurisdiction to hear matters permitted to it which arise in that entire geographical area. Put another way, if Congress criminally prohibits production of unlicensed whiskey, then every still in the Western District of Texas -- every prosecution of the crime, that is--goes to federal district court unless there is also concurrent jurisdiction because Texas makes the same act a crime, in which case, prosecutors can elect to lateral the case between the feds and the state -- this is done all of the time in drug cases.

And, but for the limits of the Commerce Clause, Congress could pass a law making the speed limit 20 miles per hour and then prosecute all violations in federal district court. For this analyisis, see the gun possession case, U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, which explores the limits of the Commerce Clause in criminal matters.

[Demosthenes]

By way of explanation to DBD, when a topic hits around 100 or so posts, we close the thread and start a new thread to continue the conversation.

Please post your responses here, DBD.

[Famspear]

Question 1: Let's suppose I am standing in a courtroom in the federal courthouse in Atlanta, Georgia, which is in Fulton County and the Northern District of Georgia. Where am I? Am I "in" (check all that apply):

a. The United States of America.
b. The state of Georgia.
c. The Northern District of Georgia.
d. The county of Fulton.
e. The city of Atlanta.
f. All of the above.

Question 2: Starting from my position in question 1, I walk out of the courtroom and out of the building and stand on the public street outside the courthouse. Where am I? Am I "in" (check all that apply):

a. The United States of America.
b. The state of Georgia.
c. The Northern District of Georgia.
d. The county of Fulton.
e. The city of Atlanta.
f. All of the above.

My answer would be "f" for both questions, but I suspect that AIS and DBD might have different answers, which is bizarre.

Well, if this evolves into any math questions, I'm goin' home.

[ASITStands]

It appears to be "multiple guess" and not math.

And, the proper word is probably "devolves" instead of evolves.

I'm ready to take a rest until I see the next brief in the Sherry Jackson appeal.

[LPC]

The point is I KNOW that the District is also in the State. I also KNOW that some Districts are coterminus with the State (see, e.g., SC, RI, DE, MT, VT, MA WY, MT, HI, and so on).

I've been trying to suppress this trivia question, but can't any longer.

As Prof points out, some states are divided into multiple districts, while some states are not, and are entire districts in themselves.

Only one federal district court includes all of one state and part of another. Which one is it?

Hint: The issue raised in the Bowen case is relevant.

[webhick]

LPC, as Secretary to the Illuminati, I had to fix the responses for you so that it conforms to the Universal Territorial Act of 1023:

a. The Illuminati Intra-Terrestrial Sector.
b. The United States of America.
c. The state of Georgia.
d. The Northern District of Georgia.
e. The county of Fulton.
f. The city of Atlanta.
g. All of the above.

[Famspear]

The point is I KNOW that the District is also in the State. I also KNOW that some Districts are coterminus with the State (see, e.g., SC, RI, DE, MT, VT, MA WY, MT, HI, and so on).

I've been trying to suppress this trivia question, but can't any longer.

As Prof points out, some states are divided into multiple districts, while some states are not, and are entire districts in themselves.

Only one federal district court includes all of one state and part of another. Which one is it?

Hint: The issue raised in the Bowen case is relevant.

I haven't read Bowen, but I believe the District of Wyoming includes the portions of Yellowstone National Park located in Montana and Idaho. 28 USC 131?

[Prof]

Curses, Famspear beat me to it!!!!

[Dr. Caligari]

I mean if you were correct Congress could pass a law for 20 mph speed limit in every State or selected States and they could criminally prosecute you in District Court.

If Congress could pass such a law, of course they could prosecute you in District Court.

I don't believe Congress could pass such a law, but not for any reason having to do with Article III, section 2, cl. 3. Such a law would, IMO, be unconstitutional only because it is not authorized by Article I, section 8.

[triumphguy2]

triumphguy2

Ok, so unless I just agree for the sake of just agreeing than I am a tax denier. Why do you even come to this forum, you don't want to hear anything other than what you want to hear.

And a sunny good morning to you, too.
I come to this forum, as I have been doing for several years, because the discussions are generally enlightening and often entertaining.

I don't know whether you are a tax denier or a supported of tax deniers. I said your arguments have characteristics of those persons. You are posting on a forum dedicated to tax fraud and scams, using arguments typically used by tax deniers and their supporters. My life is circumscribed by the reading and analysis of statutes and appellate opinions, so when I see someone who so obviously needs to heed Justice Gilbert's advice, I feel compelled to offer it up.

[Prof]

I mean if you were correct Congress could pass a law for 20 mph speed limit in every State or selected States and they could criminally prosecute you in District Court.

If Congress could pass such a law, of course they could prosecute you in District Court.

I don't believe Congress could pass such a law, but not for any reason having to do with Article III, section 2, cl. 3. Such a law would, IMO, be unconstitutional only because it is not authorized by Article I, section 8.

See also US v. Lopez.

[Famspear]

Curses, Famspear beat me to it!!!!

In law school over 20 years ago, I had scribbled that little bit about the District of Wyoming and Yellowstone (including the citation) in my paperback Barron's law dictionary -- on the page showing the map of the federal judicial circuits. I had just thought it was such an interesting piece of trivia. The pencil notation is still there -- and that dictionary is still in my possession (though not used very often).

[LPC]

I come to this forum, as I have been doing for several years, because the discussions are generally enlightening and often entertaining.

Long time lurker, second-time poster?

I don't often greet newcomers, but I liked your first (?) post. Judge Gilbert's perspective was interesting.

AIS and DBD are supposedly-erstwhile tax deniers, but lately they seemed to have regressed.

[ASITStands]

I am not a tax denier!

When someone disagree with you, it's apparent your only recourse is to give them a label. First it was "hopeless," then 'Demosthenes' suggested "willfully blind," and now, "tax denier."

I routinely convince proponents of the tax movement to file returns and pay taxes. I may have done more to convince those who oppose themselves to change their minds than you.

I respect your writing, and I respect your opinion. I wonder why you cannot do the same.

[Demosthenes]

I am not a tax denier!

Did you used to be one, but gave it up?

[triumphguy2]

Long time lurker, second-time poster?

I don't often greet newcomers, but I liked your first (?) post. Judge Gilbert's perspective was interesting.

Hi Dan,
First post as Triumphguy2; I occasionally posted under my previous screenname (Triumphguy) before the meltdown. Justice Gilbert is a big fan of Gilbert & Sullivan and regularly brings in references to their plays, as well as any other extra-judicial source which he thinks would bear (even if only peripherally) on the issue . During oral argument in Parris v. Sands (1993), 21 Cal.App.4th 187, he said "For every case name I remember, I forget a line of poetry."

[ASITStands]

I am not a tax denier!

Did you used to be one, but gave it up?

No. I was never a tax denier.

I developed a close friend who suffered many years at the hands of collection. He was eat up with tax protesting theories and other patriot delusions. He claimed his family had sold land to what later became an Illuminati enclave, and he claimed to have witnessed sacrifice.

I am unclear whether he thought it was human sacrifice or animal.

He had served in the Armed Services as a Warrant Officer behind enemy lines in Eastern Europe, and after returning home, had infiltrated Communist and other subversive groups.

At some point I took it upon myself to either prove or disprove his arguments, and I became skilled at helping people extricate themselves from errant and illogical thinking and skilled at helping them find a way out of their troubles. I've done so ever since.

I'm familiar with most of the details of every tax protesting theory over the last dozen years, and I'm familiar with the illogical, twisted thinking that results. I've learned kindness.

If you want to extricate someone from their delusional thinking, you've got to start by understanding why it is they think as they do, and you've got to show compassion.

You can be tough doing so, and I've made my own enemies by labeling, but I've found in the long run, it never works to change the person's thinking. When you offend, you lose them.

I'm not going to tell my life story. It's pretty boring. I'm reminded of my favorite line in that regard, "I was born at an early age ..." But suffice it to say, we all come from different backgrounds, and we all deserve respect, even lawyers, and even when they don't earn it.

This seems like a good place to say, "I'm going to be gone for a week." If I don't post to the forum, it's not because I'm angry or have nothing to say. I'm spending a week at youth camp doing what I can to shape young lives for the better. That's more important than Quatloos.

[Demosthenes]

Thanks ASIT. I've found that some of the most effective people to wake TPs up, used to be TPs themselves.

[Duke2Earl]

I know we all live for technical mindbending but let's get practical for just a moment. Here we go.... Congress enacts laws. Some of these laws certainly seem to require people to pay taxes. Congress also enacts laws providing for penalties for those who do not comply with those aformentioned tax laws. Now unless this was all a mind game, there has to be some court, somewhere, where a person accused of violating these laws can receive their proverbial day in court. If that's not true, then the obvious conclusion must be that Congress has no way of enforcing the laws that it has enacted. Somehow that doesn't seem real likely to me. As to Georgia... well, it seems undisputed that the defendant in this case resides in Georgia. It doesn't seem like Georgia State courts would be applicable because the State courts don't seem to have the power to deal with federal laws. So, what we have is a federal court in Georgia trying a resident of Georgia for violating a federal law. I know I must be slow but somehow despite all the words and cites and bullcrap, I fail to see the problem.