"A Cogent Summary of
Federal Jurisdictions"
by
Paul Andrew Mitchell,
B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Private
Attorney General
Imagine you are sitting in
a packed movie theater waiting for Titanic to begin, with one aisle running
down the middle, separating the seats into two wings. The theater owner thinks
you are all in his theater, but you know otherwise. Those who hold popcorn in
their right hands, sit in the right wing; those who hold popcorn in their left
hands, sit in the left wing. No? Well, just imagine it’s that way, okay?
Titanic the movie is just a fiction, albeit a magnificent one.
Now, each person in the
right wing looks across the aisle and sees nothing but foreign lefties.
They are domestic types, these righties, and they stick together. Oddly,
the lefties are no different in this regard. They look across the aisle
and see nothing but foreign righties, because lefties stick
together too. It’s all a question of where you’re sitting (or standing), during
intermission. Please don’t stand during the movie, okay?
Now, in courts, the issue
of standing has a very special meaning. Where you might be standing has
immense bearing on the laws which apply, and don’t apply, to you. We chose the
theater analogy above, because it helps to illustrate a very important concept
in federal law, and that is the distinction between foreign and domestic
jurisdictions.
The key which unlocks a
great deal of confusion, and deception, is to know that the laws of every other
State are foreign with respect to the one State you now inhabit. Thus,
if you live in California, the laws of Maine, Florida, and Oregon are foreign
to your home State’s own laws. You are like those people who prefer the right
wing in theaters: everyone who sits in the left wing is somewhat foreign
to everyone who sits in the right wing. The aisle running down the middle is
the border, or boundary line dividing both wings into truly distinct groups.
Once you understand this
relative distinction, you only need to take one more leap, and you will become
a budding expert in federal law. Here it is: the laws of the District of
Columbia are also foreign with respect to the local, domestic
laws of California, Maine, Florida, Oregon, and every other State in the Union.
Likewise, the laws of every State in the Union are foreign with respect
to the local, domestic jurisdiction of the District of Columbia.
But, you argue, Congress
makes laws for the entire country, and the States of the Union are certainly
part of our country, aren’t they? Yes, that is true. However, Congress passes
laws in one of two modes, or roles. In one role, Congress can make laws for the
entire country, which encompasses all 50 States. This is just one hat that
Congress wears.
In another role, Congress
can make laws only for the District of Columbia, because Congress is the
"state" legislature for that area of land. When Congress makes laws
which apply only inside the District of Columbia, these laws are called
"municipal" laws, and these domestic, "municipal" laws are
just as foreign to the 50 States, as the laws of those 50 States are foreign
with respect to D.C., and to each other. This is another hat which Congress
wears.
Now that you understand
this important distinction between foreign and domestic, as those
terms are used in American law, you are now ready to tackle a more difficult
problem. Here goes: if a corporation is domestic by law, does that mean
it was chartered by Congress? Answer: not necessarily. The correct answer
depends on where you and it are standing.
If you are standing in
California, and if the corporation was chartered by the State of California,
then the corporation is, indeed, domestic, because it is on the same
side of the aisle as you. But, if you cross the aisle and join the lefties,
then that corporation becomes foreign with respect to your new
situation. If you are standing in Nevada, that corporation is foreign to
you.
Similarly, if a corporation
was originally chartered in the District of Columbia, and you are standing in
California or Nevada, then that corporation is likewise foreign with
respect to where you are now standing. Foreign and domestic
are relative concepts, in law.
The key which unlocks this
whole matter of corporations is to appreciate that Congress can only charter a
corporation in its capacity as the legislature for the District of Columbia and
for other areas which are not States of the Union. Collectively, these
other areas are now called the "federal zone," and the States of the
Union are collectively called the "state zone."
Here’s a real easy way to
remember this: the stars on the American flag are each States of the Union (the
state zone). The blue field behind the stars is the federal zone. The stripes
symbolize the original thirteen colonies. Gold fringes are really superfluous.
Because of the Tenth
Amendment in the Bill of Rights, Congress is prevented from creating a truly national
corporation. The Tenth Amendment reserves to each of the 50 States a right to
charter their own local, domestic corporations. These State corporations
are, in turn, foreign with respect to all federal corporations chartered
by Congress, without exception.
Now, think back to our
theater analogy. The theater owner thinks that all of you are in his theater
(read "under his jurisdiction"). In one sense, that is true. He owns
the theater, and he can demand that customers leave if they are damaging the
seats, for example.
But, in another sense,
when movies are showing, he really needs to stay in the projection booth,
because that’s what his customers have paid him to do. In a sense, his
"jurisdiction" is then limited to the projection booth when movies
are showing, and movie goers occupy the larger area where the seats are
situated. That larger area is their "jurisdiction," not his.
To be technical about it,
the projection booth is foreign with respect to each wing of seats; the
left wing is also foreign with respect to the right wing AND to the
projection booth; the right wing is foreign with respect to the
projection booth AND to the left wing. Each pair-wise relation defines a
separate foreign/domestic relationship, depending on where one is seated, or
"standing" in law. The land where you are now standing is always domestic,
extending up to, but not beyond, your State's border. Hence, everything outside
is foreign in this context.
There is one more facet to
this analogy which we need to explore. The theater owner does have certain
vested rights of ownership. He can evict offensive customers, and those who
might trespass into the theater during off-hours. But, he cannot violate their
fundamental Rights.
Congress has been vested
with certain "national" responsibilities, and these comprise a very
limited set of authorities which Congress can exercise inside the state
zone. Outside the state zone and inside the federal zone, Congress can create
lots of local, municipal laws that are enforceable only inside the
federal zone. But, Congress cannot wear both hats at once.
The most surprising, and
even stunning discovery we made in 1992, was to prove that the Internal Revenue
Code is a local, municipal Code for the federal zone, and only for the
federal zone, as far as federal income taxes are concerned. A federal court in
Texas has even agreed.
If you really want to read
the rest of this story, you will have to buy your own copy of "The Federal
Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue," eighth edition, soon
to be published in hard copy. Please avoid any electronic copies that were
posted on the Internet. Every one of those copies was stolen, modified, and
then placed on the Internet without this author’s prior permission. If you want
to see the movie, please buy a ticket. Oh, one last thing: "internal"
means "municipal". Municipal Revenue Code? YES! Film at 11.
Please take a seat.
# # #
Paul Andrew Mitchell,
B.A., M.S., is a Counselor at Law, qualified Federal Witness, Private Attorney General,
and a Citizen of California State. He is also the creator and webmaster of the Supreme Law Library and Supreme Law Forum at Internet URL: http://www.supremelaw.org
Return
to Table of Contents for
Paul Andrew Mitchell