Perhaps this will help, **copy/paste** from message posting at Topica. For those whom yet do not have a copy of "The Federal Zone" it's time to purchase one, or read it online at the supremelaw website. Best to purchase to "have" in your library!!
*begin*
I wrote to Mr. Becraft a long time ago, with detailed references
to Private International Law aka Conflict of Laws in the legal
encyclopedias. He never responded.
from Chapter 4 in "The Federal Zone":
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm
[begin excerpt]
Technically speaking, the 50 States are "foreign countries" with respect to each other and with respect to the federal zone. In the Supreme Law Library, the essay entitled "A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions" develops this concept in plain English language.
http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/cogent.htm
A key authority on this question is the case of Hanley v. Donoghue, in which the U.S. Supreme Court defined separate bodies of State law as being legally "foreign" with respect to each other [quoting]:
No court is to be charged with the knowledge of foreign laws; but they are well understood to be facts which must, like other facts, be proved before they can be received in a court of justice. [cites omitted] It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to be considered as in this respect foreign to each other, and that the courts of one state are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to take judicial notice of, the laws of another state.
[Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 29 L.Ed. 535]
[6 S.Ct. 242, 244 (1885), emphasis added]
Another key U.S. Supreme Court authority on this question is the case of In re Merriam's Estate, 36 N.E. 505 (1894). The authors of Corpus Juris Secundum ("CJS"), a legal encyclopedia, relied in part upon this case to arrive at the following conclusion about the "foreign" corporate status of the federal government:
The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state. [citing In re Merriam's Estate, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, affirmed U.S. v. Perkins, 16 S.Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287]
[19 C.J.S. 883]
Before you get the idea that this meaning of "foreign" is now totally antiquated, consider the current edition of Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, which defines "foreign state" very clearly, as follows:
The several United States*** are considered "foreign" to each other except as regards their relations as common members of the Union. ... The term "foreign nations," as used in a statement of the rule that the laws of foreign nations should be proved in a certain manner, should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence one state of the Union is foreign to another, in the sense of that rule. ["***" means 3rd definition in Hooven case]
And a recent federal statute proves that Congress still refers to the 50 States as "countries". When a State court in Alaska needed a federal judge to handle a case overload, Congress amended Title 28 to make that possible. In its reference to the 50 States, the statute is titled the "Assignment of Judges to courts of the freely associated compact states". Then, Congress refers to these freely associated compact states as "countries":
(b) The Congress consents to the acceptance and retention by any judge so authorized of reimbursement from the countries referred to in subsection (a) .... [!!!]
[28 U.S.C. 297, 11/19/88]
Indeed, international law is divided roughly into two groups: (1) public international law and (2) private international law. As it turns out, citizenship is a term of private international law (also known as municipal law) in which the terms "state", "nation" and "country" are all synonymous:
Private international law assumes a more important aspect in the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the several states, although united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws for all national purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at least so far as private international law is concerned, in the same relation as foreign countries. The great majority of questions of private international law are therefore subject to the same rules when they arise between two states of the Union as when they arise between two foreign countries, and in the ensuing pages the words "state," "nation," and "country" are used synonymously and interchangeably, there being no intention to distinguish between the several states of the Union and foreign countries by the use of varying terminology.
[16 Am Jur 2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 2]
[emphasis added]
[end excerpt]
Mr. Becraft has attempted to obstruct my work on so many occasions now,
I have decided that I will no longer give him the time of day.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
http://www.supremelaw.org/
p.s. The Gardina case was decided by the Alabama Supreme Court:
http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm#gardina
Is Huntsville still in Alabama?
**end**
and yet some more
**begin**
Hanley v. Donoghue
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/1.html
[begin excerpt]
No court is to be charged with the knowledge of foreign laws; but they
are well understood to be facts which must, like other facts, be proved
before they can be received in a court of justice. Talbot v. Seeman, 1
Cranch, 1, 38; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187 236; Strother v. Lucas,
6 Pet. 763, 768; Dainese v. Hale, 91 U.S. 13 , 20.
It is equally well settled that the several states of the Union are to
be considered as in this respect foreign to each other, and that the
courts of one state are not presumed to know, and therefore not bound to
take judicial notice of, the laws of another state.
In Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet. 586, in which it was held that bills of
exchange drawn in one of the states on persons living in another were
foreign bills, it was said by Mr. Justice WASHINGTON, delivering the
unanimous opinion of this court:
'For all national purposes embraced by the federal constitution the
states and the citizens thereof are one, united under the same sovereign
authority, and governed by the same laws.
In all other respects the states are necessarily foreign to and
independent of each other; their constitutions and forms of government
being, although republican, altogether different, as are their laws and
institutions.' 2 Pet. 590.
Judgments recovered in one state of the Union, when proved in the courts
of another, differ from judgments recovered in a foreign country in no
other respect than that of not being re-examinable upon the merits, nor
impeachable for fraud in obtaining them, if rendered by a court having
jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties. Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet.
592; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312, 324; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How.
165, 176; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290, 305; Thompson v. Whitman,
18 Wall. 457.
[end excerpt]
So, in summary, for national purposes, the States are NOT
foreign with respect to each other; but, for local or
municipal purposes (i.e. "in all other respects" supra),
the States ARE foreign with respect to each other, and
with respect to the District of Columbia.
**end**
yet somemore
**begin**
For all first-grade students, tell them that Congress has these two hats:
(1) Congress wears one hat when the Dodgers are at bat; and,
(2) Congress wears another hat when the Padres are at bat.
This happens when Congress buys tickets to see the Padres play in their magnificent new ballpark, but Congress is really a Dodger fan! (Congress likes to "dodge" questions all the time, and that's why Congress is a Dodger fan, okay?)
If Congress wears a Dodger hat when the Padres are at bat, the Padres fans might throw peanut shells at Congress, and Congress prefers peanuts instead of empty shells.
Here's the parable:
Congress wears one hat when it enacts laws for the entire nation; these are called "national" laws, and those laws apply inside the 50 States and everywhere else that the American flag flies. This is the National League.
Congress wears a different hat when it enacts laws for the District of Columbia, and other areas where there is no State government, i.e. no "star" on the American flag. This is the Municipal League.
When Congress enacts laws which apply ONLY to the District of Columbia, such laws are called "municipal laws" or "Private International Laws".
The lawyers have confused the issue even more so, by putting this entire subject into a category called "Conflict of Laws" in the legal encyclopedias.
There is no State government in the District of Columbia, because Congress has "exclusive" jurisdiction there. This means that there is no State Governor, no State Legislature, and no State Courts. Congress is the Legislature for D.C.
Now, in Huntsville, I understand that one must graduate from high school before such concepts can be presented to public school students in that city.
Therefore, such first-grade lessons are often not learned by public school students in Huntsville, until they have been admitted to college and, since many don't bother to go to college, many of those students never EVER learn this lesson.
They certainly don't learn them in Lie Schools.
It's quite a simple lesson, really:
two hats -- one for the National League, and one for the Municipal League.
What league are you in?
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
http://www.supremelaw.org/
**end**
Linear Mode
