I am man

User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: I am man

#801

Post by Just some guy » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:21 pm

nbc wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
Just some guy wrote:

I have read the ruling, what does that have to do with anything we are discussing now?

And what "soil" belongs to the united states and what "soil" belongs to the states themselves? Unless you, like them, are going to say the united states is all the land.
Note again that the relevant terminology is 'subject to jurisdiction' which is coextensive with the concept of soil, not the other way around. Just because some territory is 'owned' by a state does not make the territory exempt of the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Subject matter wise you are correct.

But the 14th says subject to the jurisdiction, and the courts have stated that means COMPLETELY subject, not just subject matter wise.

Unless you want to state that feds have personal jurisdiction over every man, women and child in the states as well as the territories.

I of course would need to see some legal basis for that.



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: I am man

#802

Post by Just some guy » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:24 pm

nbc wrote:
nbc wrote:
Just some guy wrote:

Ok, you are getting there.

now on state land does the feds have jurisdiction over you person or territory wise?
They have jurisdiction over the person and over the soil, at least with minor exceptions under common law which are irrelevant here.
Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government's powers. Under the Constitution and various treaties, the legal jurisdiction of the United States includes territories and territorial waters.
Every state has personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory. On the other hand, no state can exercise personal jurisdiction and authority over persons outside its territory unless such persons manifest some contact with the state. - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... qzbJF.dpuf



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: I am man

#803

Post by Just some guy » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:26 pm

Just some guy wrote:
nbc wrote:
nbc wrote:
They have jurisdiction over the person and over the soil, at least with minor exceptions under common law which are irrelevant here.
Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government's powers. Under the Constitution and various treaties, the legal jurisdiction of the United States includes territories and territorial waters.
Every state has personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory. On the other hand, no state can exercise personal jurisdiction and authority over persons outside its territory unless such persons manifest some contact with the state. - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... qzbJF.dpuf
Personal jurisdiction in the federal courts is governed by rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4 directs every federal district court to follow the law on personal jurisdiction that is in force in the state courts where the federal court is located. - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... qzbJF.dpuf



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#804

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:26 pm

Just some guy wrote:
nbc wrote:
nbc wrote:
They have jurisdiction over the person and over the soil, at least with minor exceptions under common law which are irrelevant here.
Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government's powers. Under the Constitution and various treaties, the legal jurisdiction of the United States includes territories and territorial waters.
Every state has personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory. On the other hand, no state can exercise personal jurisdiction and authority over persons outside its territory unless such persons manifest some contact with the state. - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... qzbJF.dpuf
I see you can read but what is the argument? Every state, and every country has jurisdiction over persons within its territory. There are federal territories and state territories, and the federal jurisdiction extends over both.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#805

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:27 pm

Just some guy wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
nbc wrote:
They have jurisdiction over the person and over the soil, at least with minor exceptions under common law which are irrelevant here.
Every state has personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory. On the other hand, no state can exercise personal jurisdiction and authority over persons outside its territory unless such persons manifest some contact with the state. - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... qzbJF.dpuf
Personal jurisdiction in the federal courts is governed by rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4 directs every federal district court to follow the law on personal jurisdiction that is in force in the state courts where the federal court is located. - See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/juris ... qzbJF.dpuf
Now we are going from territorial to personal jurisdiction. Yes, for civil procedures, not criminal procedures, this is indeed correct.

You did realize that this was limited to civil procedures?...

ROTFL



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#806

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:29 pm

Just some guy wrote:
nbc wrote:
Just some guy wrote:

And what "soil" belongs to the united states and what "soil" belongs to the states themselves? Unless you, like them, are going to say the united states is all the land.
Note again that the relevant terminology is 'subject to jurisdiction' which is coextensive with the concept of soil, not the other way around. Just because some territory is 'owned' by a state does not make the territory exempt of the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Subject matter wise you are correct.

But the 14th says subject to the jurisdiction, and the courts have stated that means COMPLETELY subject, not just subject matter wise.

Unless you want to state that feds have personal jurisdiction over every man, women and child in the states as well as the territories.

I of course would need to see some legal basis for that.
The feds have personal jurisdiction over everyone (rights of criminal procedure) There are minor exceptions, which involves those exempt of jurisdiction (invading military, foreign dignitaries etc).



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: I am man

#807

Post by Just some guy » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:32 pm

Of course looking thru write ups from law schools say that you are wrong, but lets not have facts get in the way eh?

http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/v ... xt=faculty



User avatar
Just some guy
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:34 am

Re: I am man

#808

Post by Just some guy » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:34 pm

nbc wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
nbc wrote:
Note again that the relevant terminology is 'subject to jurisdiction' which is coextensive with the concept of soil, not the other way around. Just because some territory is 'owned' by a state does not make the territory exempt of the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Subject matter wise you are correct.

But the 14th says subject to the jurisdiction, and the courts have stated that means COMPLETELY subject, not just subject matter wise.

Unless you want to state that feds have personal jurisdiction over every man, women and child in the states as well as the territories.

I of course would need to see some legal basis for that.
The feds have personal jurisdiction over everyone (rights of criminal procedure) There are minor exceptions, which involves those exempt of jurisdiction (invading military, foreign dignitaries etc).
So if I beat the guy next door to death, the feds have personal jurisdiction over me is what you are saying?



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10236
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: I am man

#809

Post by Chilidog » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:54 pm

What a tiresome putz



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10461
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: I am man

#810

Post by Mikedunford » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:57 pm

Just some guy wrote:So if I beat the guy next door to death, the feds have personal jurisdiction over me is what you are saying?
The feds have personal jurisdiction over you, but would only be able to exercise that jurisdiction if they also had subject matter jurisdiction. If the guy next door is a Professor of Klein Bottle Basketweaving at the local college, there's probably not subject matter jurisdiction (the murder would be a state crime, but not federal). If the guy next door is a United States Senator, there's going to be subject matter jurisdiction (because the murder would be criminal under both state and federal law).

Similarly, if both you and the guy next door and the guy next door's wife are domiciled in the same state, there's probably not going to be subject matter jurisdiction for her to bring a federal wrongful death lawsuit. If she tried to sue you in federal court anyway, a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would be successful, but (provided she filed the complaint, obtained a summons, and served you properly) a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under 12(b)(2) would fail.


"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7048
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: I am man

#811

Post by Slarti the White » Sat Apr 23, 2016 6:58 pm

Mike,

Could you introduce me to the professor of Klein bottle basket weaving? I'd really like to learn about that.

:towel:


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Dallasite
Posts: 3089
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Location: About 40,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Occupation: Senior Scheduling Manager
Chemtrails Program
Human Factors and Behavioral Sciences Division

Re: I am man

#812

Post by Dallasite » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:15 pm

What a fucking idiot. Now he's using the "Everyone says I'm wrong so I must be right" argument. When we all get bored and ignore him, he'll switch to the " No one is disputing what I say so I must be right" argument.

I sure hope his wife is the one home schooling his children. If it's him, they won't be qualified to even dig ditches.


"I drank what?!?!" - Soctates, 399 BC

User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#813

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:34 pm

Just some guy wrote:
So if I beat the guy next door to death, the feds have personal jurisdiction over me is what you are saying?
That depends, you really do not understand much about law now do you?

Citing Rules of Civil Procedure... ROTFL



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#814

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 9:37 pm

Just some guy wrote:Of course looking thru write ups from law schools say that you are wrong, but lets not have facts get in the way eh?

http://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/v ... xt=faculty
Still not understanding that there are rules of CRIMINAL and CIVIL procedures and that they apply to very different cases.

For goodness sakes, get familiar with our legal system before you criticize it, or pretend to understand it.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#815

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:00 pm

Under US v Wong Kim Ark
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction

So what does subject to the jurisdiction mean?
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.
In other words, anyone other than a few classes outlined above are born subject to the jurisdiction when born in the United States.

Not to be confused with "Federal Lands", which is territory over which the Federal Government has ownership under Article Four, section 3, clause 2 where the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, since
18 U.S. Code § 3231 - District courts

The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States.

Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under the laws thereof.
31 CFR 515.329 - Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:

(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.]

So who is a person within the United States
31 CFR 515.330 - Person within the United States.
§ 515.330 Person within the United States.

(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;

(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8206
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: I am man

#816

Post by RoadScholar » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:23 pm

Dallasite wrote:What a fucking idiot. Now he's using the "Everyone says I'm wrong so I must be right" argument. When we all get bored and ignore him, he'll switch to the " No one is disputing what I say so I must be right" argument. :snippity:
Dim Sum Gai is at heart an egotist. A great role, a perennial heroic scenario, is being the lone true voice in a wilderness of ignorance. Attention, applause, the thanks of a grateful nation... maybe even a statue!

Unfortunately, that script calls for the lone voice to actually be right, and for the crowd to actually be wrong.

When that is not the case, instead of being lauded for his wisdom the would-be savior gets reviled as just another worthless, annoying jackoff douchebag. Eventually even the like-minded catch on and throw him under the bus. Deservedly so, and that goes double for Iambic Man.

Being tedious is bad enough when it's necessary. Pointless and tedious? Merde!


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

boots
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 pm

Re: I am man

#817

Post by boots » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:28 pm

Just some guy wrote:
So if I beat the guy next door to death, the feds have personal jurisdiction over me is what you are saying?
No one said that you fool. Go to law school if you're so curious.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#818

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:32 pm

Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202 - Supreme Court 1982
lthough we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' " Id., at 687.
So, alas my friend, you are wrong.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#819

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:34 pm

Techno Luddite wrote:
Just some guy wrote:
So if I beat the guy next door to death, the feds have personal jurisdiction over me is what you are saying?
No one said that you fool. Go to law school if you're so curious.
It's fascinating how clueless people are about the term 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
A person within the jurisdiction of one of the states remains subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In other words, such a person is held to all laws of the United States.



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4228
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

Re: I am man

#820

Post by nbc » Sat Apr 23, 2016 10:51 pm

On further analysis, it seems that our friend is rather confused about the concept of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction means that the sovereign can actually enforce all the laws passed by the Sovereign, or in the case of the United States, it has limited law making powers, however said laws are applicable to all and anyone within its jurisdiction. And yes, this includes people living in a State not on Federal territory as well.

In other words, whether you are a person visiting the US, or a resident or citizen within the US, you are under full jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Federal government can arrest you for any offense against its laws.

This is why a child, any child, born on US soil, is born under jurisdiction thereof, unless its parents are invading military, foreign dignitaries or Indians not paying taxes. These are known common law exceptions to jurisdiction and 'subject to jurisdiction' is meant to exclude these common law exceptions. By virtue of birth on soil, and subject to its jurisdiction, such a child is born a citizen of our nation.

If a person were to renounce his citizenship, such a person would become an alien to our nation but would still remain subject to all our laws. There is no way to really escape jurisdiction unless you become a foreign dignitary, an invading military, or an Indian not paying taxes (at least that was the case for a while under US case law).

So I am not sure how our friend intends to remove himself from the jurisdiction in which he resides or was even born into.



User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10236
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: I am man

#821

Post by Chilidog » Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:49 am

As annoying as JSG is, it has been enjoyable watching him get schooled.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 17036
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: I am man

#822

Post by Suranis » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:40 am

So in MANly world...

I am 6 and a half feet tall and am 350 pounds. So I can rape his wife as he can't stop me.

Mwah mwah guns defence. Gosh I have a gun too. And a stick. So see above.

I am not a US citizen, confirmed with no arguments, so US law can't touch me for it.

*unzip* Yep ability confirmed.

Gosh, thanks!


Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: I am man

#823

Post by Plutodog » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:31 am

I think I am child's quote mines about William Torrey Harris includes one long one that is false although you can find it on line in multiple (usual subject) sites. The one about ugly schools seems to be true, the other not. It doesn't seem to fit with his philosophy of education as best I can tell.

I'm a bit tired of looking, maybe somebody else can find something more definitive.


The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

User avatar
Epectitus
Posts: 3669
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:55 pm

Re: I am man

#824

Post by Epectitus » Sun Apr 24, 2016 10:42 am

Just some guy wrote:All rights are created by humans?
Yes.
Just some guy wrote:That's a strange concept, who else supports this notion?
Friedrich Nietzsche. Iain MacSaorsa. Bob Seidensticker. Others. Why?
Just some guy wrote:So if alone all my life, at 18 years old, I am attacked by a bear, I have to wait for other humans to arrive before I can defend myself?
You will probably need those other people, because one on one you have little chance. As I said before, humans are remarkably capable as a community, and essentially helpless as individuals. The bear will likely eat you anyway.

But to the actual point, if you want to pretend that defending yourself is a "natural right" as opposed to simply a natural capacity, then you have a problem. After all, from that perspective, the bear's "right" to eat you is exactly as valid as your "right" to defend yourself. There is no moral, ethical, legal or philosophical superiority of one "right" over the other, and the conflict between them is mediated entirely by violence. This is where the concept of natural rights is shown to be incoherent. These circumstances of actual nature, when translated to the situations of human interaction, cannot establish your "natural right" to defend yourself without simultaneously establishing every other human being's "natural right" to attack and kill you for any reason they so choose.
Just some guy wrote:A voicebox gives me the right to speak, which human invented that? How about my legs used in my freedom to travel, who invented those?
Your voicebox gives you the capacity to speak. Your legs give you the capacity to travel. Both have limits. Either can be taken from you by injury or disease. Neither is naturally afforded to everybody.

If speaking is a "natural right" why is it that nature also creates humans without the capacity? Are persons born with physiological muteness less human? Do they have fewer "rights" than persons who can speak? Does a person born crippled by spina bifida have fewer "rights" than a person born with an intact spine? And if either of these things are "natural rights" must we conclude that the natural loss of such capacities due to stroke or accident is somehow a violation of "natural rights"?

Back to the bear... if you have a "natural right" to speak or travel, then I must necessarily have the "natural right" to prevent you from speaking or traveling... because while nature may provide us with capacities, it does not provide us with any moral distinction between exercising such a capacity or denying its exercise.
Just some guy wrote:Alone all my life, walking along I spot a shiny rock, but I can not pick it up and put it in my pouch because I know no other humans and therefore have no right to property.
You can pick up whatever you are capable of picking up. And I can take from you whatever I am capable of taking from you. And ultimately, when we both are dead, the shiny rock will take its place again laying on or in the ground. "Property" is a fascinating concept. But it is by every objective measure only a temporary one, and like all other "rights" can only be enforced by a community consensus backed by coercive force.

Maybe the bear does not want to eat you. Maybe the bear only wants to take your shiny rock. Tell be again how "property" is a natural right? Exactly?
Just some guy wrote:yeah bro, that all makes sense man, cool frickin story broski.
Must be... you have to this point offered no actual argument against it?
Just some guy wrote:Yeah, I can see you are the top pick of the litter around these parts.
The capacity (or even the "right") to defend yourself from the bear requires you to exercise it, or it is pointless and futile. The capacity (or even the "right") to defend your position requires you to actually try and defend it. I have notice that your pattern with me is to ask whiny rhetorical questions, call names, and then run away. And sadly, I an one of the few in the thread actually respecting your arguments with straightforward responses.

You appear no better prepared to defend yourself from me than you are that bear.


"Hell, I would wear a dress and ruby red slippers all year if we can prove this" - Mike Zullo

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 10236
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: I am man

#825

Post by Chilidog » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:02 am

“Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear, well, he eats you.”

Image



Post Reply

Return to “FEMA Camp 7½”