Larry-How does a USDC have jurisdiction within a state?
Dane Metcalfe
http://supreme.justia.com/us/258/298/case.html
The United States District Court is not a true United States court
established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the
judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by
virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under article
4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations
respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The
resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts,
in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal
not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a
mere territorial court.
MOOKINI v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 201 (1938)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/201/case.html
The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the rules,
without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic
significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under
article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are
legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of
the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court
with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the District Courts of the
United States does not make it a 'District Court of the United
States.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 154; The City of
Panama, 101 U.S. 453, 460; In re Mills, 135 U.S. 263, 268, 10 S.Ct.
762; McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174, 182, 183 S., 11 S.Ct.
949; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 476, 477 S., 19 S.Ct.
722; Summers v. United States, 231 U.S. 92, 101, 102 S., 34 S.Ct. 38;
United States v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 163, 53 S.Ct. 574. Not only
did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United
States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision
for the application of the rules to the territorial courts and other
courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation
that was intended.
Larry
<c03ebb1c-bff2-49a1...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't understand your question, nor do I understand the relevance of
these cases to your question.
Dane Metcalfe
> In article
> <c03ebb1c-bff2-49a1-a53d-4c503f814...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is the State of Oklahoma a territory "belonging" to the fedral
Government?
The two cites are also distinguishing between a District Court of the
United States as opposed to a United States Distict Court.
Larry
<9940e302-1389-4f73...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
The state of Oklahoma is a sovereign state within the United States of
America.
> The two cites are also distinguishing between a District Court of the
> United States as opposed to a United States Distict Court.
No, they're distinguishing between "District Courts" in US territories
and "District Courts" in US states.
Larry
richard <sp...@google.dom> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:02:06 -0800 (PST), Dane Metcalfe
> <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
> >http://supreme.justia.com/us/258/298/case.html
>
>
> Larry only claims to be a new york city prosecutor. A claim which yet
> has to be proven.
Come to my office and see my certificate of bar membership hanging on
the wall, as well as the certificate of my appointment to office.
Larry
richard <sp...@google.dom> wrote:
> Better still, take a photo of yourself with your boss, with the
> certificate and diploma. Then post it.
First, this isn't a binary group, so I can't post it.
Second, you'd probably accuse me of doctoring the photo.
Third, my office has hundreds of ADAs. If by my boss, you mean the
District Attorney, I don't interact with him on a regular basis.
Fourth, I just don't care what you think of me. I can count on one hand
(balled up into a fist) the number of times you've ever been right on a
legal issue.a
Larry
richard <sp...@google.dom> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:45:52 -0500, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> Better still, take a photo of yourself with your boss, with the
> certificate and diploma. Then post it.
I also think its worth noting that instead of substantively responding
to my proving your wrong in this and other threads, you simply question
my background.
It shouldn't matter what I do for a living, the quality of my posts
speak for themselves. And they run laps around anything you post.
Dane Metcalfe
> In article <814pm31q76oihspn48thk3el62siai8...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> richard <s...@google.dom> wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:45:52 -0500, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> > > richard <s...@google.dom> wrote:
>
> > >> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:02:06 -0800 (PST), Dane Metcalfe
> > >> <quackde...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
> > >> >http://supreme.justia.com/us/258/298/case.html
>
> > >> Larry only claims to be a new york city prosecutor. A claim which yet
> > >> has to be proven.
>
> > >Come to my office and see my certificate of bar membership hanging on
> > >the wall, as well as the certificate of my appointment to office.
>
> > Better still, take a photo of yourself with your boss, with the
> > certificate and diploma. Then post it.
>
> I also think its worth noting that instead of substantively responding
> to my proving your wrong in this and other threads, you simply question
> my background.
>
> It shouldn't matter what I do for a living, the quality of my posts
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lol, I think I've had legal discussions with richard before
Dane Metcalfe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Larry, you are quoting " 'District Courts in US Territories'" and
"'District Courts in US states", but
The US Supreme Court Said in quotation marks 'District Courts of the
United States" being over the US States. As a matter of fact, they use
the exact phrase "'District Courts of the United States" 5 time in
that one paragraph.
So
"United States District Court"= Territorial Court
"District Court of the United States" = US Courts in states.
Or, do you mean in legalese the two translate to be synonynous.
Then, why are they bothering to discuss the difference?
That must be what they teach in BAR School.
Dane Metcalfe
>
> - Show quoted text -
No offense intended, Larry, but this is the type of response I've come
to expect from the government,
Dane Metcalfe
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://supreme.justia.com/us/303/201/case.html
The term 'District Courts of the United States,' as used in the
rules,
without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic
significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under
article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are
legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of
the United States.
BALZAC v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/258/298/case.html
The United States District Court is not a true United States court
established under article 3 of the Constitution to administer the
judicial power of the United States therein conveyed.
So, how is a legislative court that is not an Article 3 judicial court
operating in a sovereign state?
Oh, I know.
I'll bet its a sneaky trick by the executive branch working in concert
with an underhanded legislative branch, so naturally the "sterling"
"judicial" courts go ahead and co-opt.
The federal zone.
So, how did the state courts end up being legislative courts instead
of judicial courts also?
I'd say it was a scheme concocted in a bar not open to the public.
Larry
<dd6c8eae-11d9-4369...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
Because there IS a difference, as you yourself wrote. District Courts
within the states are different from courts within the territories.
What I'm not clear of is why you are concerned with this issue.
> That must be what they teach in BAR School.
What's Bar school?
Larry
richard <sp...@google.dom> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:49:54 -0800 (PST), Dane Metcalfe
> <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 21, 10:38 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >> In article <814pm31q76oihspn48thk3el62siai8...@4ax.com>,
> >>
> >
> >Lol, I think I've had legal discussions with richard before
>
>
> Do note that this is precisely what a usenet newsgroup is all about.
> Discussions.
> There are no prerequisites, requirements, for anyone to post anything
> here.
> One thing I try to point out continously, I am not an attorney. I do
> not claim to be one unlike many in here.
> Anything you read here, should not be taken as legal advice.
> If you accept such responses as legal advice, then sir, you are a
> fool.
> In many cases, I do research before I post a reply. Something many
> asking questions should have done. If they have, then maybe those
> questions need to be asked.
>
> I like to banter with Larry because he knows absolutely nothing
> outside of his little corner of the world.
> He just proved it with his last post. He doesn't interact with his
> boss the DA?
There are several hundred attorneys, and well over a thousand employees,
in my office. We're not like Durham or Eagle County Colorado or one of
those places where the D.A. himself handles cases personally. It's a
huge office.
Do you think every A.D.A in major jurisdictions like Cook County, Los
Angeles, or the boroughs of New York City know the D.A. personally? Do
you think the D.A. is personally involved in each of the tens of
thousands of cases a year that occur in these jurisdictions?
> He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit?
Not free reign, but I have wide lattitude to employ my discretion. I do
report to other, more senior, attorneys, though.
> Who
> takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
Depending on the magnitude of the screwup, it could be me, or my boss,
or all the way up to the D.A. himself. But I haven't had any screwups
that significant, so I just don't know.
> Anybody can claim anything, but are they? In usenet, you never know.
Larry
<dd6c8eae-11d9-4369...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
And if you read Article III, the only court specified is SCOTUS. Every
other court is created by Congressional legislation. So if they want to
create district courts" under article III, they can. If they want to
create legislative courts under another power of theirs, they could do
that too.
Heck, if Congress wanted to, they could theoretically pass a law
abolishing all district and circuit courts. Most people don't realize
this, but Article III seems to give them that power, since they're all
created by statute.
Deadrat
news:6j5qm3969vcctt97p...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:49:54 -0800 (PST), Dane Metcalfe
> <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 21, 10:38 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>> In article <814pm31q76oihspn48thk3el62siai8...@4ax.com>,
>>>
>>
>>Lol, I think I've had legal discussions with richard before
>
>
<snip>
> In many cases, I do research before I post a reply.
Please excuse my directness. I don't believe you. See below.
> Something many
> asking questions should have done. If they have, then maybe those
> questions need to be asked.
> I like to banter with Larry because he knows absolutely nothing
> outside of his little corner of the world.
> He just proved it with his last post. He doesn't interact with his
> boss the DA?
And here's why I don't believe you do any research. I don't recall
whether Larry has ever identified the county he works for, but let's
suppose it's New York County. There are about 500 ADAs working for the
DA, Robert Morgenthau. It took me about 10 seconds to find this:
<quote src="http://manhattanda.org/organization/executive/"
emphasis="mine">
The direction of the office is determined by the District Attorney. The
legal executive staff assists the District Attorney with this endeavor.
The legal executive staff includes the Chief Assistant District Attorney,
Executive Assistant District Attorney, Administrative Assistant District
Attorney, Counsel to the District Attorney, Deputy Administrative
Assistant District Attorney, Special Assistant District Attorney, and the
*
*Chiefs and the Deputy Chiefs of the Trial and Investigation Divisions.*
*
</quote>
I don't recall whether Larry has ever identified the unit he works for --
there are over a dozen -- but from his posts, it seems he's in the Trial
Division, which has six bureaus of about 50 ADAs each.
Larry is a tiny cog in a huge machine. Perhaps he will tell us how many
official level of bureaucracy insulate him from the DA. But in any case,
it's clear that he could spend his entire life as an ADA and never see
Mr. Morgenthau face to face.
> He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit?
Where did Larry say that? The office claims to prosecute 100,000 cases a
year. You do the division. That should tell you that ADAs must have
broad latitude in the conduct of their jobs, but I doubt that Larry would
claim "free reign." I doubt he'd even claim free rein.
> Who takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
Every here the expression that "shit rolls downhill"?
> Anybody can claim anything, but are they? In usenet, you never know.
This is true. In cyberspace anybody can play an ADA. Just like they can
pretend to research the topics they post about.
Dane Metcalfe
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:49:54 -0800 (PST), Dane Metcalfe
>
> <quackde...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 21, 10:38 pm, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >> In article <814pm31q76oihspn48thk3el62siai8...@4ax.com>,
>
>
> Discussions.
> There are no prerequisites, requirements, for anyone to post anything
> here.
> One thing I try to point out continously, I am not an attorney. I do
> not claim to be one unlike many in here.
> Anything you read here, should not be taken as legal advice.
> If you accept such responses as legal advice, then sir, you are a
> fool.
> asking questions should have done. If they have, then maybe those
> questions need to be asked.
>
> I like to banter with Larry because he knows absolutely nothing
> outside of his little corner of the world.
> He just proved it with his last post. He doesn't interact with his
> takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
>
Lol! Richard! I remember our "discussions" well. Too funny!
Our discussions involved me posting serious research showing your
claims to be incorrect, and then me patiently explaing to you what the
authority was saying two or three times until finally shut up.
Last I saw of you, until recently, was when an OP came to misc.legal
and posed the question of whether a nude photo of a child was illegal.
After it was remarked by someone here that you suddenly showed an
experts knowledge of the subject then you was plainly a pervert you
vanished for a while.
Welcome back richard, though it seems you should be more careful about
what you post here, as it seems you are being so "careful" now, by
your use of the standard clause around here that you probably cut and
pasted in the first place.
But, whatever, thanks for the warning, anyway!
Dane Metcalfe
It's clear to me that you are dodging the issue, but, I understand
why, so, I will not push the issue.
But I believe that I am within my public right to explain my
understanding, to the best of my belief.
That is to say that the evidence shows that you are probably bound by
oath to not "understand" my question well.
Would it be offensive to you if I present some of that evidence, for
those who might be interested?
You are welcome to provide commentary as you see fit, of course.
>
> > That must be what they teach in BAR School.
>
> What's Bar school?- Hide quoted text -
Larry
<eeee71ff-d5e7-4ffe...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Dane Metcalfe <quack...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not dodging it, and I don't know how it would be clear that I was -
I honestly don't understand your question, or the purpose behind it.
But as I said above, a territory is different from a state. You
understand this, right?
> But I believe that I am within my public right to explain my
> understanding, to the best of my belief.
>
> That is to say that the evidence shows that you are probably bound by
> oath to not "understand" my question well.
Bound by what oath? I have absolutely no stake whatsoever in the
structure, power, or authority of federal courts. It doesn't affect me
one bit, other than an interest in the structure of our government and
judicial systems.
> Would it be offensive to you if I present some of that evidence, for
> those who might be interested?
Post whatever you want, its a free country. I'd particularly be
interested to see whatever evidence you have of any oaths I have taken.
But if you can't understand that there is a legal distinction between a
state and a territory, there's not much anyone will be able to explain
to you.
Larry
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> richard <sp...@google.dom> wrote in
> news:6j5qm3969vcctt97p...@4ax.com:
>
>
> > In many cases, I do research before I post a reply.
>
> Please excuse my directness. I don't believe you. See below.
In his defense, he did say "many," not "all." Although I don't believe
that assertion, either.
> > Something many
> > asking questions should have done. If they have, then maybe those
> > questions need to be asked.
>
> > I like to banter with Larry because he knows absolutely nothing
> > outside of his little corner of the world.
>
> > He just proved it with his last post. He doesn't interact with his
> > boss the DA?
>
> And here's why I don't believe you do any research. I don't recall
> whether Larry has ever identified the county he works for, but let's
> suppose it's New York County. There are about 500 ADAs working for the
> DA, Robert Morgenthau. It took me about 10 seconds to find this:
I haven't ever said which of the NYC DA's Offices I work for. Even if I
did, I don't think I'd be believed. Heck, the troll known as Prof.
Jonez once called me a liar because I stated I knew at least 6 other
ADAs named Larry or Lawrence in New York City.
> <quote src="http://manhattanda.org/organization/executive/"
> emphasis="mine">
> The direction of the office is determined by the District Attorney. The
> legal executive staff assists the District Attorney with this endeavor.
> The legal executive staff includes the Chief Assistant District Attorney,
> Executive Assistant District Attorney, Administrative Assistant District
> Attorney, Counsel to the District Attorney, Deputy Administrative
> Assistant District Attorney, Special Assistant District Attorney, and the
> *
> *Chiefs and the Deputy Chiefs of the Trial and Investigation Divisions.*
> *
> </quote>
>
> I don't recall whether Larry has ever identified the unit he works for --
> there are over a dozen -- but from his posts, it seems he's in the Trial
> Division, which has six bureaus of about 50 ADAs each.
I didn't ever say which unit I work for, and I can say that all of the
DA Offices in NYC are structured similarly to the description posted
above. Though there are also cases of cross-assignments. For example,
a DA who is in a general trial unit can also be a member of the sex
crimes bureau, or something like that.
> Larry is a tiny cog in a huge machine. Perhaps he will tell us how many
> official level of bureaucracy insulate him from the DA.
Depending on how you count it, approximately 4-5. And there are a few
levels below me as well.
> But in any case,
> it's clear that he could spend his entire life as an ADA and never see
> Mr. Morgenthau face to face.
That's not entirely true - only the DA him/herself can hire someone or
appoint them as an ADA or administer the oath of office. So every ADA
sees the DA who they work for at least on those two occasions.
> > He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit?
>
> Where did Larry say that?
I didn't, because as you and other rational thinkers would realize, I
don't.
> The office claims to prosecute 100,000 cases a
> year. You do the division. That should tell you that ADAs must have
> broad latitude in the conduct of their jobs, but I doubt that Larry would
> claim "free reign." I doubt he'd even claim free rein.
Again, I didn't. That being said, you can imagine I have more
discretion in how to handle a minor, run-of-the-mill shoplift than I
would, say, a high-profile violent case that's been in the press.
> > Who takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
>
> Every here the expression that "shit rolls downhill"?
>
> > Anybody can claim anything, but are they? In usenet, you never know.
>
> This is true. In cyberspace anybody can play an ADA. Just like they can
> pretend to research the topics they post about.
I've seen enough of Richard's posts over the years to predict that this
is about the time he abandons this thread.
Deadrat
news:x-23D355.19...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
> In article <fWdbj.25419$4V6....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
> Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> richard <sp...@google.dom> wrote in
>> news:6j5qm3969vcctt97p...@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>> > In many cases, I do research before I post a reply.
>>
>> Please excuse my directness. I don't believe you. See below.
>
> In his defense, he did say "many," not "all." Although I don't
> believe that assertion, either.
I don't believe him because this was an easy one, and he obviously didn't
bother to do any checking.
>> > Something many
>> > asking questions should have done. If they have, then maybe those
>> > questions need to be asked.
>>
>> > I like to banter with Larry because he knows absolutely nothing
>> > outside of his little corner of the world.
>>
>> > He just proved it with his last post. He doesn't interact with his
>> > boss the DA?
>>
>> And here's why I don't believe you do any research. I don't recall
>> whether Larry has ever identified the county he works for, but let's
>> suppose it's New York County. There are about 500 ADAs working for
>> the DA, Robert Morgenthau. It took me about 10 seconds to find this:
>
> I haven't ever said which of the NYC DA's Offices I work for. Even if
> I did, I don't think I'd be believed. Heck, the troll known as Prof.
> Jonez once called me a liar because I stated I knew at least 6 other
> ADAs named Larry or Lawrence in New York City.
It only took me a few minutes to look up the Larrys (Larries?) in the DAs
offices in NYC. I think I stopped at five.
Thanks for the correction. And, cool! Did you get to have a few words
with Morgenthau? The guy is almost 90 now, and I've been a fan since
Nixon forced him out as USA. But then again, maybe you're not in NY
County.
>> > He's given free reign to prosecute as he sees fit?
>>
>> Where did Larry say that?
>
> I didn't, because as you and other rational thinkers would realize, I
> don't.
>
>> The office claims to prosecute 100,000 cases a
>> year. You do the division. That should tell you that ADAs must have
>> broad latitude in the conduct of their jobs, but I doubt that Larry
>> would claim "free reign." I doubt he'd even claim free rein.
>
>
> Again, I didn't. That being said, you can imagine I have more
> discretion in how to handle a minor, run-of-the-mill shoplift than I
> would, say, a high-profile violent case that's been in the press.
>
>> > Who takes the blame for a screw up? Larry? or his boss?
>>
>> Every here the expression that "shit rolls downhill"?
>>
>> > Anybody can claim anything, but are they? In usenet, you never
>> > know.
>>
>> This is true. In cyberspace anybody can play an ADA. Just like they
>> can pretend to research the topics they post about.
>
> I've seen enough of Richard's posts over the years to predict that
> this is about the time he abandons this thread.
That would be the sensible thing to do.
Dane Metcalfe
> In article <fWdbj.25419$4V6.8...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>,
<snip>
>
> I've seen enough of Richard's posts over the years to predict that this
> is about the time he abandons this thread
He may even (again) abandon the newsgroup for awhile. :)
esaup...@gmail.com
> In article <6j5qm3969vcctt97pkqkvupa1gq92qm...@4ax.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What if the attorney general is running a vacant office?
[url]http://Friends-n-Family-Research.info/FFR/
Merrill_John_Suthers'_AG_oath.jpg[/url]
esaup...@gmail.com
_ Prof. Jonez _
>
> I don't understand
Typical.
Larry
Your disingenuous snipping to take portions of a post out of context?
Yes, it is quite typical.