Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Uncle Sam is foreign

Expand Messages
  • Patrick McKEE
    CONTEXT MATTERS & that section is ONLY discussing the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States . 663 Special Maritime and
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 11, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      CONTEXT MATTERS & that section is ONLY discussing the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States ".

       

      663  Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction

       

      A number of Title 18 sections specifically declare certain conduct to be a Federal crime if committed "within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States ." See, e.g., murder, 18 U.S.C. §  1111. In some instances, the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, is also applicable. See also, 15 U.S.C. § 1175; 15 U.S.C. §  1243; 16 U.S.C. § 3372.

       

      The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States " is defined in eight subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 7. These subsections relate to maritime jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(1), 7(2); lands and buildings, 18 U.S.C. § 7(3); Guano Islands, 18 U.S.C. §7(4); aircraft, 18 U.S.C. § 7(5); spacecraft, 18 U.S.C. § 7(6); places outside the jurisdiction of any nation, 18 U.S.C. § 7(7); and foreign vessels en route to and from the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 7(8).

       

      http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00663.htm

       

      That says NOTHING about the TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION of the United States , DOES it?

       

      Do you “believe” that you are ALLEGEDLY under the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States "?

       

      18 USC 7

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000007----000-.html

       

      Do you UNDERSTAND that IF the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could exercise “plenary criminal jurisdiction” over you that the STATE could NOT exercise ANY jurisdiction over you?

       

      PLENARY: complete in every respect : absolute, unqualified <plenary power>; 2: fully attended or constituted by all entitled to be present

      http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plenary

       

      Patrick in California

       

      Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

       

      "It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus

       

    • Jake
      Regarding the argument that the federal gov t. is foreign to the States & the posting of a section of the U.S. Attny. Criminal Resource Manual, Patrick is of
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 11, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding the argument that the federal gov't. is "foreign" to the States & the posting of a section of the U.S. Attny. Criminal Resource Manual, Patrick is of course correct when he says: 


           CONTEXT MATTERS & that section is ONLY discussing the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States".


        People who will not look things up on their own & would rather follow some patriot guru try to use maritime & territorial jurisdiction as a blanket to throw over everything, but "that dog won't hunt."  And if you read some case law you'll soon find out how very limited admiralty & maritime jurisdiction is - your car is not a "vessel" (neither is a "14th Amendment U.S. citizen"), a crime committed in a State which has nothing to do with a ship on "navigable waters" does not fall under "admiralty" jurisdiction, etc.  "Territorial" jurisdiction on land is very limited too & in many cases there is "concurrent jurisdiction" where both the State & the federal gov't. have jurisdiction, but each over particular aspects of a given situation.

        The courts have routinely separated real admiralty & maritime cases from all others along Constitutional lines & those in which admiralty or territorial jurisdiction has been claimed but doesn't actually exist are quickly dismissed.  In other words, laws which apply to a ship coming into a U.S. port or to a crime committed on a military base in Guam do NOT apply to crimes committed in the States, under either State or federal law.

        You can back up any argument there is by taking statutes, regulations, etc. out of context, but that doesn't give the argument any validity whatsoever.  And the admiralty / maritime arguments which supposedly "prove" that federal gov't. is "foreign" to the States have been shot down in flames so many times that it's a complete & total waste of time to start down that path.

         

        ~ ~ ~

      • BOB GREGORY
        *Federal jurisdiction and its extent are serious questions, and it is not in the government s interest these days to be open and honest about it In 1956
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 11, 2010
        *Federal jurisdiction and its extent are serious questions, and it is not in
        the government's interest these days to be open and honest about it

        In 1956 President Eisenhower and his cabinet authorized a study to determine
        answers to questions about federal jurisdiction. I have attached the report
        from that study and hope that Bear will post it in the Tips_and_Tricks files
        section.

        I am also attaching a short paper on elements of jurisdiction. I do not
        know how authoritative it is, but you can review it and decide for
        yourselves.*
      • Jake
        The Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States paper Bob Gregory posted I got in hard copy years ago & it s a very good paper to study. I wouldn t call
        Message 4 of 6 , Dec 12, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          The Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States paper Bob Gregory posted I got in hard copy years ago & it's a very good paper to study. I wouldn't call it "definitive" as to every situation & in the introductory portion, the paper states that, ". . . the extent of jurisdictional control which the [federal] Government may have over land can and does vary to an almost infinite number of degrees between exclusive legislative jurisdiction and a proprietorial interest only." Nonetheless, the paper is an excellent study into the different aspects of State & federal jurisdiction, including how they often overlap.

          Another excellent resource is the Constitution, Annotated, available from several sources, including:

          http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/ 

          http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

          I have the entire 1992 edition in .pdf, but the links above also include supplements since then with newer case law. The Annotated version is far more than just the Constitution itself; after each section is a discussion on the meaning & application of specific provisions, including citations of every single relevant U.S. supreme court decision. In other words, every "legal precedent" ruling from the U.S. supreme court which directly affects any given provision is discussed or listed after the section it applies to.

          Countless arguments abound about what the Constitution ought to mean, how different people have "interpreted" the Constitution or any provision in it, but the only determinations which matter are those spelled out in supreme court rulings, right or wrong. Annotated versions of State & federal statutes are available too (in law libraries) & when you've got a case to deal with & want to use an argument someone else has used or is telling you will work, the only smart thing to do is to throw their opinions & yours out the window, then go see if that argument has been raised to the legal precedent level before, and if it has, what the end result was.

          There are many arguments which started out with some validity but have been presented so poorly so many times that they're useless now - most of that coming from taking valid points of law out of context & mixing them in with someone's "interpretation" of what the law says / means. But once you know how the courts are likely to rule on any given argument, you can revise your argument with "legal precedent" case law which backs up your position. You can bet your opponent will be looking up case law to back up his arguments & if you don't take the time to research yours, you've lost the case before it even gets started.

          Periodically you may come across a situation which has not been adjudicated by the courts, I know I have. There you have the possibility of getting a "legal precedent" set in your favor which will affect everyone else in a similar situation too, if the case goes high enough up the procedural ladder to get an appellate court ruling - lower court rulings don't set a precedent. If you get into such a situation, you want to look for all legal precedent decisions which come close to covering your issue, but actually don't, framing your argument in such a way that the cases you cite leave the door open for you to demand a ruling in your favor on the specific point(s) you make that haven't been addressed directly before.

          Point being that no court is the least bit interested in any legal theory / opinion / interpretation you or I have, but you can steer the court (or administrative agency) towards the ruling you want by showing how higher courts have already dealt with the issues, or if they haven't, how they've dealt with similar issues & are likely to rule on this one.  Pro Se people lose all the time because their arguments are based on legal theory & they have not researched any case law to see if their arguments have been raised before - you can be about 99% sure they have been.  


          Don't be "Polly Parrot", simply repeating arguments you've heard or seen others make but have never researched on your own.  See how Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States, relevant sections of the Constitution, AnnotatedAnnotated versions of statutes apply to your situation 1st, then going by the case law you find, see if any particular argument you're thinking about making will fly.  Whether you agree with how the courts have ruled or not is irrelevant & if the argument you make has been shot down before, it'll get shot down again.


          ~ ~ ~

        • Patrick McKEE
          Jake made some great points & suggestions. IF people took the TIME to VERIFY & RESEARCH things they would NOT be PARROTING the OUT OF CONTEXT, INACCURATE
          Message 5 of 6 , Dec 13, 2010
          • 0 Attachment

            Jake made some great points & suggestions.

             

            IF people took the TIME to VERIFY & RESEARCH things they would NOT be PARROTING the OUT OF CONTEXT, INACCURATE and/or FABRICATED quotes that abound on the internet.

             

            The ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION is also available online at Cornell & FindLaw & it appears that the Justia version may be the most CURRENT.

             

            The content of the CRS Annotated Constitution was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress, and published electronically in plaintext and PDF by the Government Printing Office. Dating back to 1964, the initial online annotations were published in 1992, and supplements were released in 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000.

             

            This edition is a hypertext interpretation of the CRS text. It links to Supreme Court opinions, the U.S. Code, and the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as enhancing navigation through linked footnotes and tables of contents.

             

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/

             

             

            FindLaw has divided the document up into smaller sections for the Web and added hyperlinks between the sections, as well as links to Supreme court cases cited in the annotations. FindLaw also incorporated the 1996, 1998 and 2000 Supplements into the 1992 Edition text.

            http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

             

             

            The Constitution of the United States of America including analysis and interpretation of the Constitution with annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States through June 29, 2004. Annotations include direct Web links to cited cases.

            http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/

             

            Patrick in California

             

            Founder, ALLIANCE for PEACE & PROSPERITY

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alliancepeaceprosperity/

             

            "The problem with people learning from history is that so few actually do."--Unknown

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.