Thank Neil Rowe [S]tatutes apply only to state created creatures known as corporations no matter whether [creatures of statute and offices of] state, local, or federal [government]. (Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100. (1975) ). United States Supreme Court, [much less any inferior court of limited jurisdiction] cannot supply what Congress [or the legislatures of the several states] has studiously omitted in a statute.“ (Federal Trade Com. v. Simplicity Pattern Co. 360 U.S. 55, p. 55 475042/56451 (1959)). [T]he fact that Congress might have acted with greater clarity or foresight does not give courts a carte blanche to redraft statutes in an effort to achieve that which Congress is perceived to have failed to do. (United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 95 (1985)). [N]o clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant (United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954)); All legislation is prima facia territorial and words having universal scope will be taken, as a matter of course, to mean only every one subject to such [territorial] legislation, not that all the legislator subsequently may be able to catch. (American Banana Co. v United Fruit Co. 213 US 347, 29 S Ct 511, 53 L Ed 826 (1909)) Criminal statutes are not by implication given extra territorial effect [or personum jurisdiction]. (United States v Flores, 289 US 137, 53 S Ct 580, 77 L Ed 1086). “A statute will not be presumed to have extraterritorial effect... outside the [territorial] jurisdiction of the legislature.. over persons residing outside the [territorial] jurisdiction of the legislature. (Bond v Jay, 7 Cranch 350, 3 L Ed 367). Particularly is true where the statute imposes a burden or limitation, as distinguished from conferring a benefit or advantage. (United States v. Knight 14 pet. 301, 315 (1840); Chisolm v Georgia 2 Dall 419; Penhallen v Doane v Administration 3 Dall 54; McCullogh v Maryland 4 Wheat 316; Hauenstein v Lynharm 100 US 483 (1879); Yick Wo v Hopkins and Woo Loo v Hopkins 188 US 356 (1886)). This admonition takes on a particular importance when the Court construes criminal laws. (United States v. Granderson, 511 U.S. 39, 69 (1994)). As a prerequisite for presiding over a case, a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense and of the person of the defendant; that is, two jurisdictional requirements must be satisfied before a court has authority to hear and determine a particular cause of action.”( Malone v. Com. 20 S.W.3d 180 (2000)) [T]he U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government [and their franchise territorial State courts] as an individual entity. (Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773). “Entity includes (incorperated) person(s), estate, trust, governmental unit.” (Bancruptcy Act Sub Sec 101(14)). An entity is there further defined as an “organization or being, that possesses separate existence for tax purposes; having an existence apart, such as a corporation in relation to its stockholders. A Juridical person is defined as an Entity, as a firm, that is not a single natural person, as a human being, authorized by law with duties and rights, recognized as a legal authority having a distinct identity, a legal personality. Also known as artificial person, juridical entity, juristic person, or legal person. (Blacks Law Dictionary). “The (14th) amendment (and U.S. Citizenship) referred to slavery. Consequently, the only persons embraced by its provisions, and for which Congress was authorized to legislate in the manner were those then in slavery. (Bowlin v. Commonwealth 65 Kent. Rep. 5, 29 (1867)). After the adoption of the 13th Amendment, a bill which became the first Civil Rights Act was introduced in the 39th Congress, the major purpose of which was to secure to the recently freed Negroes all the civil rights secured to white men. . . .(N)one other than citizens of the United States [freed negros] were within the provisions of the Act [providing for U.S. citizenship]. (Hague v. C. I. O., 307 U. S. 496, 509 ( )). 14th Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to ally doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship. (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649.687,688 The purpose of the 14th Amendment... was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States who could not be brought within operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, at the same time left them without citizenship. Such persons were not white persons but in the main were of African blood, who had been held in slavery in this country... (Van Valkenburg v Brown 43 Cal 43. 47 (1872)); [I]n our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship [of state, replacing it with U.S. citizenship]. (Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)); . The Congress cannot revoke the Sovereign power of the people to override itself as thus declared. (Perry v. United States , 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)). Citizenship by birth is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts.“ (Mandoli v. Acheson, 344 U.S. 133, 97 L.Ed. 146, 73 S.Ct. 135 (1952)). “ [I]t is States province and duty to forbid interference by another state or foreign power with status of its own citizens. (Roberts v Roberts 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381 (1947); Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., p 1300) A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states. (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
Posted on: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:11:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015