Again, thank you so much! You are making this complaint writing so much easier for me!!!! You have no idea how much I appreciate your helping me.
But I do have a question: I hadn't seen Eisenhower's EO before, but wasn't this deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court? I ask based on this gem that I'd found:
Jesson v. David (2002):
“…the California Supreme Court in Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 68 Cal. 2d 18 found paragraph 2 of the oath to be invalid under the United States Constitution. That is, it would violate the Constitution of the United States for California to require that language. Our high court concluded that two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, and Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) 385 U.S. 589, compelled such a result.”
If it is State officials that you are after, then I would think you should use California's oath's and statutes.
EO's have authority in the United States only and for Federal citizens
United States = Washington DC and the 7 territories/ US citizen
United States of America = 50 states/ state citizen
.
.
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states.
Thank you. The reason I dug up the Jesson v. David court case was because California's constitution has a second paragraph, and none of the oaths I received had that second paragraph. I did some digging to find out why. Since I am fighting California corruption, I have mostly focused on CA laws, but since I have been wrestling in the swamp, I throw in some federal statutes sometimes, too. :)
Again, thank you so much! You are making this complaint writing so much easier for me!!!! You have no idea how much I appreciate your helping me.
But I do have a question: I hadn't seen Eisenhower's EO before, but wasn't this deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court? I ask based on this gem that I'd found:
Jesson v. David (2002):
“…the California Supreme Court in Vogel v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 68 Cal. 2d 18 found paragraph 2 of the oath to be invalid under the United States Constitution. That is, it would violate the Constitution of the United States for California to require that language. Our high court concluded that two decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966) 384 U.S. 11, and Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) 385 U.S. 589, compelled such a result.”
If it is State officials that you are after, then I would think you should use California's oath's and statutes.
EO's have authority in the United States only and for Federal citizens
United States = Washington DC and the 7 territories/ US citizen
United States of America = 50 states/ state citizen
.
.
"It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." Foley Brothers. Inc. V. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1948)
"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters [outside of Constitutionally delegated powers] do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force ONLY in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." Caha V. US, 152 U.S. 211.
"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." United States Code, Title 18 45 1, Par. 3d.
Title 18 USC at 7 specifies that the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States extends only OUTSIDE the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states.
Thank you. The reason I dug up the Jesson v. David court case was because California's constitution has a second paragraph, and none of the oaths I received had that second paragraph. I did some digging to find out why. Since I am fighting California corruption, I have mostly focused on CA laws, but since I have been wrestling in the swamp, I throw in some federal statutes sometimes, too. :)