Citizenship/Jurisdiction Cites

[Ice]

In Cooper's case it may have been true that he was both.& He may have demonstrated that he was both and therefore the judge decided he was both.


When it comes to citizenship you do not ASK anyone what your status is -- you TELL them what your status is.& And that could be Cooper's Biggest Mistake.


&

[nralien]

Thanks Ice.


You are probably right.& I was under the impression if the question of your "citizenship" came up it would only be safe to report that you live in your body and have no first hand memory all the way back to your birth, etc.& In stating you were in fact born in a Republic would be hearsay for most people because most people do not have memories that far back.


Even if documents were presented in court that bears what looks like your signature, wouldn't it again be hearsay if there is no notarized document stating you in fact sign it?


As a matter of fact, even if they had a notarized document stating you signed such and such- how many people have your exact name?& In California alone there must be at least 6 people with my EXACT name.


nralien

[suijuris]

The mere ownership of land does not put the United States in a different position, as regards the matter of jurisdiction over it, than they acquired previous to its acquisition, and it is only after the state has parted with its jurisdiction, which may be either by a formal cession thereof to the United States, or simply by assenting to the acquisition of the land by the latter, that Congress becomes invested with authority to legislate. 1875, 14 Op.Atty.Gen. 557.



United States did not establish that portion of privately owned parking lot leased by federal agency came within criminal jurisdiction of United States under the Assimilated Crimes Act, as a "place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by the consent of the legislature of the state . . . for the erection of a needful building"; although lease of property satisfied "otherwise acquired" clause, and parking lot which was part of operation of federal courthouse was within contemplation of state's implied consent to jurisdiction, United States did not show that agency gave notice of acceptance of jurisdiction to governor of the state. U.S. v. King, D.N.J.1991, 781 F.Supp. 315.



Mere fact that state has retained right to serve criminal and civil process on lands is not effective to prevent cession of exclusive or concurrent criminal jurisdiction to federal government. U. S. v. Schuster, E.D.Va.1963, 220 F.Supp. 61.



The United States cannot exercise exclusive jurisdiction over territory within a state taken only for a temporary purpose, as in the case of the World's Columbian Exposition. U.S. v. World's Columbian Exposition, C.C.N.D.Ill.1893, 56 F. 630, reversed

56 F. 654, 6 C.C.A. 58.



Whether a homicide committed within the boundaries of a state constituted an offense against the laws of the United States, of which a federal court had jurisdiction, depended on two questions: First, whether there had been such a cession by the state to the United States of the territory upon which the act alleged to constitute the crime was committed as to render such territory a "place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," within former §§ 451 and 452 of this title [now this section and § 1111 of this title] which was a question of law for the court; and, second, if such cession was made, whether the act was committed within the territory so ceded, which was a question of fact, to be submitted to the jury.

U.S. v. Lewis, C.C.W.D.Tex.1901, 111 F. 630.



The state courts cannot take cognizance of offenses committed on territory within it belonging to the United States, over which Congress has exclusive power of legislation. Sharon v. Hill, C.C.Cal.1885, 24 F. 726, 11 Sawy. 122. See, also, Mitchell v. Tibbetts, 1835, 34 Mass. 298, 17 Pick. 298; Commonwealth v. Clary, 1811, 8 Mass. 72.







A United States court has jurisdiction of an indictment for a murder committed on a vessel at anchor below low-water mark in an arm of the sea, and not within the body of a county. Smith v. U.S., Wash.1869, 1 Wash.Terr. 262.



Where arm of the sea, creek, haven, etc., is so narrow that a person standing on one shore can reasonably discern and distinctly see by the naked eye what is doing on the opposite shore, the waters are within the body of a county. U S v. Grush, C.C.Mass.1829, 26 F.Cas. 48, 5 Mason 290,



The federal District Court in Virginia had no jurisdiction to try a defendant on a charge of piracy alleged to have been committed on a ferryboat plying between Washington and Alexandria, on the Potomac river, on tide water. Ex parte Ballinger, D.C.Va.1882, 88 F. 781.



The United States courts have jurisdiction to try charges of crime committed on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, at any point on the high seas, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state. U.S. v. Beyer,

C.C.S.D.Ga.1887, 31 F. 35.



A homestead acquired by an Indian on public land in a state under the general homestead law was not land "reserved * * * for the exclusive use of the United States," within former § 451 of this title [now this section] and a federal court was without jurisdiction to try a criminal offense committed thereon. U.S. v. Lewis, S.D.Cal.1918, 253 F. 469.



If under deed the United States transferred land previously within its special territorial jurisdiction on a condition subsequent whereby the United States was required to take an affirmative step to retake the land, or interest conveyed, the deed left the United States only a chose-in-action, a reserved power of termination, but no reserved interest in the land; but if deed contained a special limitation and a possibility of reverter, conditioned on the happening of certain events, then the United States did reserve an interest in the land on which special territorial jurisdiction could be predicated. U. S. v. Goings, D.C.N.D.1974, 372 F.Supp. 811, affirmed 504 F.2d 809.



Federal jurisdiction over a crime does not arise merely from ownership of the United States. U. S. v. Schuster, E.D.Va.1963, 220 F.Supp. 61.



The federal courts had no jurisdiction of the crime of larceny under former § 466 of this title [now § 661 of this title] committed in a place where the jurisdiction of the United States was concurrent with that of a state. U.S. v. Tierney, C.C.S.D.Ohio 1864, 28 F.Cas. 159, 1 Bond 571



There can be no crimes against the District of Columbia, the District not being a sovereignty, but crimes committed in the District of Columbia are crimes against the United States. U.S. v. Cella, App.D.C.1911, 37 App.D.C. 433, certiorari denied 32 S.Ct. 526, 223 U.S. 728, 56 L.Ed. 633.



Accused's guilty plea to possession of device for smoking cocaine in violation of California state law was not provident, where specification contained no allegation of requisite federal jurisdiction over situs of crime, prosecution failed to establish on record that United States had exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over the situs, and no inquiry was made of prosecution or defense counsel regarding subject-matter jurisdiction; essential element to be proven of offense based on UCMJ article proscribing crimes and offenses and on federal Assimilative Crimes Act is that offense occurred at place subject to exclusive or concurrent federal legislative jurisdiction. U.S. v. Harris, ACMR 1988, 27 M.J. 681.



Whether the national government acquired exclusive jurisdiction over lands within national park, or the state reserved jurisdiction over crimes there committed, depends upon terms of the state Legislature's consent or cession. Bowen v. Johnston, U.S.Cal.1939, 59 S.Ct. 442, 306 U.S. 19, 83 L.Ed. 455.



The exclusive jurisdiction of the United States to prescribe and punish criminal offenses committed on land or in a "place" occupied for governmental purposes may be derived either from U.S.C.A.Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17, where the place was purchased by consent of the state legislature, or from an express cession of such jurisdiction by the legislature. U.S. v.

Tucker, W.D.Ky.1903, 122 F. 518.



Federal statute defining when a criminal offense occurs within the jurisdiction of the United States covers cases where exclusive jurisdiction of state land is acquired by the federal government pursuant to constitutional provision permitting U.S. to obtain exclusive jurisdiction over lands within a state for erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. U.S. v. Gilbert, D.Mass.2000, 94 F.Supp.2d 157.



To give the United States exclusive jurisdiction the place must have been purchased by the United States for some of the purposes specified in U.S.C.A.Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 17, and the purchase must have been made with the consent of the state legislature. U.S. v. Tierney, C.C.S.D.Ohio 1864, 28 F.Cas. 159, 1 Bond 571

[Jerseee]

All,

I am just re-posting here to bring this post back to the forefront.

I have been reading and noticed some are having battles with BB and Sui Juris has compiled some very good case law here that will help some in their battles.

Currently I am developing a certificate of Non-citizenship national status, using some of these holdings that Sui Juris has painstakenly posted.

I hope this helps and have fun!!!
thanks again SJ

[suijuris]

Jersee,


You are welcome, I hope you will share your certificate when it is completed. I do not doubt that it will be a masterpiece!

Regards,
Sui Juris

[Jerseee]

SJ,

LOL!!! LMAO!!!

Not a masterpiece but, a work of art. I do try hard to do the right thing for this forum and for people that trust me enough to ask for my opinion.

[FlunkyNoMo]

I rec'd an email regarding the use of the term "American national". I haven't read all the cites listed on this thread and there may be duplication of cites as a result, but thought this research was presented as a tidy little package. I'm now so confused, I don't know what I'm, so don't ask. There's so much double speak, and depending on the code, the definition seems to keep changing.
& & & & & & & & & & &
What is "American national"??????
Before using this term you should do a little research on it.& I have, and
here is what the law says an American national is:& Citizen of American
Samoa or Swain's Island.
Be careful with term.& Our "national" government only works on "nationals"
and if you claim to be such, don't try to use the argument you are outside
the Federal governments jurisdiction because if you are a national, you put
yourself right back where you think you just left.
I have tried to show this to Chis Hansen for years, but he won't come
around, and he is being really stubborn about it, and if you do the research
you will find the supreme court has even made this known.& Until the
Philippines became independent, they were nationals as well, but the court
said that today the only nationals left were in American Samoa.
Notice the caliber of the government English, that is not my misspelling.
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0302001003
RS 02001.003 “U.S. Nationals”
Most of the agreements refer to “U.S. nationals.” The term includes both
U.S. citizens and persons who, though not citizens, owe permanent allegiance
to the United States. As noted in RS 02640.005 D., the only persons who are
nationals but not citizens are American Samoans and natives of Swain's
Island.
Retirement and Serviver's Insurance& SS Administration
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.doi.gov/oia/chapter2.html& Department of Interior
2.2 Political Status Developments and Federal Relations
American Samoa is an unincorporated and unorganized territory of the United
States. It is "unincorporated" becuase not all provisions of the U.S.
Constitution apply. It is "unorganized" becuase Congress has not provided
the territory with an organic act, which would provide for the organization
of the government and its relationship to the Federal Government. Congress
has delegated the authority over American Samoa to the Secretary of the
Interior, who in turn authorized the territory to draft the constitution
under which it operates. American Samoans are nationals of the United States
and may become naturalized U.S. citizens.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/Me...2/polimgrt.htm USDA Food Stamp Service
Non-citizens who qualify outright.
There are some immigrants who are immediately eligible for food stamps
without having to meet other immigrant requirements, as long as they meet
the normal food stamp requirements:
Non-citizen nationals (people born in American Samoa or Swain’s Island).
American Indians born in Canada.
Members (born outside the U.S.) of Indian tribes under Section 450b(e) of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
Members of Hmong or Highland Laotian tribes that helped the U.S. military
during the Vietnam era, and who are legally living in the U.S., and their
spouses or surviving spouses and dependent children.
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.wallacestate.edu/fa/finan...plication.html

&CITIZEN AND ELIGIBLE NON-CITIZEN VERIFICATION

To receive financial aid, federal law requires the student must be either a
United States citizen or an eligible non-citizen. So that we& can verify
your status, please complete the certification statement below and attach
clear photocopies of the indicated documentation. Please note that your
documents will be submitted by WSCC to the Immigration and Naturalization
Service for confirmation. Please check the appropriate box below.

_____ CITIZEN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES& PLACE OF BIRTH
____________________________

_____& CITIZEN NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES
· Attach a copy of your form FS-240: "Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S.
Citizen bearing the& embossed seal including the words "United States
of America" and "State Department"; or
· Attach a copy of your Certificate of Citizenship; or
· Attach a copy of your Certificate of Naturalization; or
· Attach a copy of your U.S. Passport.

_____NON-CITIZEN NATIONALS (natives of American Samoa or Swain's Island),
PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF THE NORTHERN MARIAN ISLANDS OR THE TRUST TERRITORY OF
THE PACIFIC ISLANDS: (eligibility limited to grant aid)
· Attach a copy of your U.S. Birth Certificate or Passport
----------------------------------------------------
http://medsweb.clemson.edu/policymanual/ch2.htm Medicade
2.04.03 United States (U. S.) Citizens

United States citizens are individuals born in the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Northern Marina Islands,
nationals from American Samoa or Swain’s Island.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ssbb.com/article6.html Footnote to Expatriation and Senator
Moynihan's Tax Proposal

6) Immigration and Nationality Act Sec.349(a), 8 USC Sec.1481(a). The terms
``citizen,'' used popularly, and ``national,'' used in the expatriation
statute, are referred to here interchangeably as a matter of convenience.
The term, ``national of the United States,'' the more inclusive, is defined
in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Sec.101(a)(22), 8 USC
Sec.1101(a)22), as ``(a) a citizen of the United States, or&(b) a person
who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to
the United States.'' Persons born in Samoa and Swain's Island are nationals
but not citizens of the United States; in general, persons born in Puerto
Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands are citizens of the United States. 4
Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman & Stephen Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and
Procedure Sec.92.04 (1995)&

FNM


I wanted to add the origin of the email: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lawworks/

[Jerseee]

FNM,

Let's go back to basics. To the foundation. The Constitution. You are a natural born citizen. An American Citizen.

I would only use those codes and statutes to show that there is a difference but, I will not leave the essence of the Constitution. As you can plainly see, you are confused--right?

That confusion leaves room for argument and debate. Which ultimately will lead you to abandon the Constutition and have you chose a code. You see in the codes, they try to say that one is just as equivalent as the other.

But in the Constitution, it does not say such a thing. Articel II, section 1, paragraph 5 clearly states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.."

The conjunction "or" signifies that there is a choice between 2 things. I.E. "either or", "this or that", "yes or no".

Stay the course and have fun.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

But in the Constitution, it does not say such a thing. Articel II, section 1, paragraph 5 clearly states, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.." The conjunction "or" signifies that there is a choice between 2 things. I.E. "either or", "this or that", "yes or no". Stay the course and have fun.

Jerseee!


Now stop it! You're making this way too simple.


No doubt about it. I gotta read--REALLY read--the Constitution.


No, wait. YOU'VE already done that, right?


Now, in a serious mode: Ain't it frightening just how "conditioned" we've become?


Randy

[suijuris]

Lets try to use this thread for cites only please...



Here are a few more:







§ 1420 - -Who is born in United States and subject to United States jurisdiction [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]



A person is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for purposes of acquiring citizenship at birth, if his birth occurs in territory over which the United States is sovereign, even though another country provides all governmental services within the territory and the territory is subsequently ceded to the other country. A child who is conceived in the United States, but born in another country is not a child born in the United States. A child born on a merchant vessel of American registry, on the high seas, of alien parents who are domiciled in the United States is not a child born in the United States.







§ 1455 Definition of "national" [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]



For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the term "national" means a person owing permanent allegiance to a state and the term "national of the United States" means either a citizen of the United States or a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States. An abstract, subjective sense of "allegiance" to the United States is not sufficient to satisfy the statute requiring permanent allegiance to the United States in order to become a national of the United States, and "allegiance" is generally defined as the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. Generally, a person may become a national of the United States under the statute granting that status as a result of owing permanent allegiance to the United States only at birth, and a person who is born in another country must affirmatively renounce all allegiance to the foreign state and apply for naturalization in order to become a national of the United States.



¨ Comment: Although other federal statutes and regulations contain similar definitions of "national," nationals may also be defined differently than they are defined for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.







§ 1456 Persons to whom status granted at birth [3A Am Jur 2d ALIENS AND CITIZENS]



Unless otherwise provided by 8 USCS § 1401, the following are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States at birth:

(1) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States on or after the date of formal acquisition of such possession;

(2) a person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(3) a person of unknown parentage found in an outlying possession of the United States while under the age of 5 years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of 21 years, not to have been born in such outlying possession.



The section of the INA designating as nationals persons born outside the United States and its outlying possessions to parents both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, applies prospectively only and does not apply to persons born prior to its effective date.



Note: At present, the term "outlying possession of the United States" applies only to American Samoa and Swains Island.



Case authorities:



Section 1993 of the Revised Statute of 1874, which as it existed at the time of the defendant's birth on May 30, 1925, awarded U.S. citizenship to foreign-born offspring of U.S. citizen fathers, but not mothers, is unconstitutional as applied to defendant because the Government's stated purpose for the statute's gender distinction–avoiding the problems associated with dual citizenship–does not constitute a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the distinction. United States v Breyer (1993, ED Pa) 829 F Supp 773, supp op (ED Pa) 1993 US Dist LEXIS 18201.