BANK OF ENGLAND ACT (1694)

                             BANK OF ENGLAND ACT 1694
                                   (5 & 6 Will. & Mar. c. 20)

An Act for granting to their Majesties several Rates and Duties upon Tunnage of Ships and Vessels, and upon Beer, Ale, and other Liquors, for securing certain Recompences and Advantages in the said Act mentioned, to such Persons as shall voluntarily advance the Sum of Fifteen hundred thousand Pounds towards carrying on the War against France.
 

Sections 1 to 15 and section 17 repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1867.  Sections 16 and 18 repealed by the
Statute Law Revision Act 1966.

19 Their Majesties may appoint Rules for transferring: and may make the Subscribers a corporation, subject to Redemption And … that it shall and may be lawful to and for their Majesties, by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England, to limit, direct, and appoint how and in what Manner and Proportions and under what Rules and Directions, the said Sum of Twelve hundred thousand Pounds, Part of the said Sum of Fifteen hundred thousand Pounds, and the said yearly Sum of One hundred thousand Pounds, Part of the said yearly Sum of One hundred and forty thousand Pounds, and every, or any Part or Proportion thereof, may be assignable or transferable, assigned or transferred, to such Person or Persons only as shall freely and voluntarily accept of the same, and not otherwise; and to incorporate all and every such Subscribers and Contributors, their … Successors, or Assigns, to be one Body Corporate and Politick, by the name of The Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and by the same Name of The Governor and Company of the Bank of England to have perpetual Succession, and a Common Seal, and that they and their Successors, by the Name aforesaid, shall be able and capable in Law to have, purchase, receive, possess, enjoy, and retain to them and their Successors, Lands, Rents, Tenements and Hereditaments, of what Kind, Nature, or Quality soever; and also to sell, grant, demise, alien, or dispose of the same; and by the same Name to sue and implead, and be sued and impleaded, answer and be answered
in Courts of Record, or any other Place whatsover, and to do and execute all and singular other Matters and Things by the Name aforesaid, that to them shall or may appertain to do; subject nevertheless to the Proviso and Condition of Redemption herein after mentioned.   

First words omitted repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888, and second words omitted repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1948.

Section 20 repealed by the Bank of England Act 1708 and the Statute Law Revision Act 1867.  Section 21 repealed by the
Bank Act 1892.  Sections 22 to 24 repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1867 and section 25 repealed by the Bank of
England Act 1946.



26 Corporation not to trade – Punishment
And to the Intent that their Majesties Subjects may not be oppressed by the said Corporation, by their monopolizing or ingrossing any Sort of Goods, Wares, or Merchandizes, the said Corporation to be made and created by this Act shall not at any 

Time, during the Continuance thereof, deal or trade, or permit or suffer any Person or Persons whatsoever, either in Trust or for the Benefit of the same, to deal or trade with any of the Stock Moneys, or Effects of, or any Ways belonging to the said Corporation, in the buying or selling of any Goods, Wares, or Merchandizes whatsoever; and every Person or Persons who shall so deal or trade, or by whose Order or Directions such Dealings or Trading shall be made, prosecuted or managed, shall forfeit for every such Dealing or Trading, and every such Order and Directions, treble the Value of the Goods and Merchandize so traded for, to such Person or Persons who shall sue for the same by Action [in the High Court].


Section 26 amended by the Common Informers Act 1951 and words in square brackets substituted by the Supreme Court
of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.


27 In what things they may nevertheless deal
Provided that nothing herein contained shall any Ways be construed to hinder the said Corporation from dealing in Bills of Exchange, or in buying or selling Bullion, Gold or Silver, or in selling any Goods, Wares or Merchandize whatsoever, which shall really and bona fide by left or deposited with the said Corporation for Money lent and advanced thereon, and which shall not be redeemed at the Time agreed on, or within Three Months after, or from selling such Goods as shall or may be the Produce of Lands purchased by the said Corporation.


Section 28 repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976. Sections 29 to 31 repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1948. Sections 32 and 34 repealed by the Bank Act 1892. Sections 33 and 35 to 48 repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1867.  The Act, as reproduced here, is taken from ‘Acts relating to the Bank’ Vol 1 published in 1694.

de jure v.s de facto and desuetude

Defacto - illegal or illegitimate, without lawful title
     =========================================== In a legal context, de jure is translated as "concerning law".   

A practice may exist de facto, where for example the people obey a contract as though there were a law enforcing it, yet there is no such law.  A process known as "desuetude" may allow de facto practices to replace obsolete de jure laws.  On the other hand, practices may exist de jure and not be obeyed or observed by the people.

In law, desuetude (from the Latin desuetudo, outdated, no longer custom) is a doctrine that causes statutes, similar legislation or legal principles to lapse and become unenforceable by a long habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.  It is what happens to laws that are not repealed when they become obsolete.  It is the legal doctrine that long and continued non-use of a law renders it invalid, at least in the sense that courts will no longer tolerate punishing its transgressors.

The policy of inserting sunset clauses into a constitution or charter of rights (as in Canada since 1982) or into regulations and other delegated/subordinate legislation made under an Act (as in Australia since the early 1990s) can be regarded as a statutory codification of the  common{-}law doctrine.


British law 
The doctrine of desuetude is not favoured in the common{ }law tradition.  In 1818, the English court of King's Bench held in the case of Ashford v Thornton that trial by combat remained available at a defendant's option in a case where it was available under the common law.  The concept of desuetude has more currency in the civil law tradition, which is more regulated by legislative codes, and less bound by precedent.

The doctrine has been applied in regard to acts of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament.  Hundreds of Acts dating back to the Middle Ages have also been amended or abolished in current and former British territories by numerous Statute Law Revision Acts from falling into desuetude.


United States law
Desuetude does not apply to violations of the United States Constitution.  In Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970), the United States Supreme Court asserted that: "It is obviously correct that no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it."

It may, however, have validity as a doctrine in defense of penal prosecution.  In 1825, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to enforce the traditional punishment of ducking for women convicted as common scolds, stating that "total disuse of any civil institution for ages past, may afford just and rational objections against disrespected and superannuated ordinances." Wright v. Crane, 13 Serg. & Rawle 220, 228 (Pa. 1825).

The seminal modern case under U.S. state law is a West Virginia opinion regarding desuetude, Committee on Legal Ethics v. Printz, 187 W.Va. 182, 416 S.E.2d 720 (1992).  In that case, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that penal statutes may become void under the doctrine of desuetude if:
 
The statute proscribes only acts that are malum prohibitum and not malum in se;
    
There has been open, notorious and pervasive violation of the statute for a long period; and
   
There has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement of the statute.

This holding was reaffirmed in 2003 in State ex rel. Canterbury v. Blake, 584 S.E.2d 512 (W. Va. 2003).

While it may not be a violation of due process to enforce a desuetudinal law, the fact that a law has long gone unenforced may present a bar to standing in a suit to prevent its future enforcement. 

In Poe v. Ullman, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to Connecticut's ban on birth control, writing:
 
The undeviating policy of nullification by Connecticut of its anti-contraceptive laws throughout all the long years that they have been on the statute books bespeaks more than prosecutorial paralysis . . . . 'Deeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy'—or not carrying it out—'are often tougher and truer law than the dead words of the written text.'

Shortly thereafter, Connecticut's birth control law was enforced, and struck down, in Griswold v. Connecticut.

ENGLAND - de jure-de facto

Defacto - illegal or illegitimate, without lawful title
=================================
ENGLAND - de-jure-de-facto

Old English - (de facto, until 1066)
Old Norse - (de facto, until 12th century)
Norman-French - (de jure, 1066 – 15th century)
Middle English - (de facto, 1066 – late 15th century)
English - (de facto, from 16th century)
Welsh - (de facto)
Cornish - (de facto)
     ==================================================================
Motto - Dieu et mon droit - (French)
"God and my right"
     ==================================================================
History    
 -      Unification--->>> 12 July 927
 -      Norman conquest--->>> 1066–1088
 -      Laws in Wales Acts--->>> 1535–1542
 -      Union of the Crowns--->>> 24 March 1603
 -      Glorious Revolution--->>> 11 December 1688
 -      Union with Scotland--->>> 1 May 1707
     ==========================================
Currency--->>> Pound sterling
     ==========================================
Today part of United Kingdom
( England and  Wales)
     ==================================================================
Religion--->>> Roman Catholic until 1533 and from 1553 to 1558; Anglican from 1533 to 1553 and from 1558 onwards.
     ==========================================
Government--->>> Absolute monarchy (before 1215)
Semi-constitutional monarchy (1215–1649, 1660–1689)
Constitutional monarchy (1689–1707)

Monarch
 -      927–939--->>> Æthelstan (first)
 -      1702–1707--->>> Anne (last)
     ===========================================
Legislature--->>> Parliament
 -      Upper house--->>> House of Lords
 -      Lower house--->>> House of Commons
    ===========================================
 The Kingdom of England in 1603.
     =========================================== 
The Kingdom of England was, from 927 to 1707, a sovereign state to the northwest of continental Europe.  At its height, the Kingdom of England spanned the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain (including both modern-day England and Wales) and several smaller outlying islands; what today comprises the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. It had a land border with the Kingdom of Scotland to the north.  At the start of the period its capital and chief royal residence was Winchester, but Westminster and Gloucester were accorded almost equal status, with Westminster gradually gaining preference.

England as a state began on 12 July 927 after a gathering of kings from throughout Britain at Eamont Bridge, Cumbria, but broadly traces its origins to the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain and the Heptarchy of petty states that followed and ultimately united.  The Norman invasion of Wales from 1067–1283 (formalised with the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284) put Wales in England's control, and Wales came under English law with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542.  On 1 May 1707, England was united with Scotland to create the Kingdom of Great Britain under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707.  Though no longer a sovereign state, modern England continues as one of the countries of the United Kingdom.

The City of Westminster, near to London but not part of it, had become the de facto capital by the beginning of the 12th century.  It served as the capital of the Kingdom of England, then of the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801).  Subsequently, with the expansion of London, the capital of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is considered to be London. 

History 
The Kingdom of England has no specific founding date.  The Kingdom originated in the kingdoms of the ancestral English, the Anglo-Saxons, which were carved out of the former Roman province of Britannia.  The minor kingdoms in time coalesced into the seven famous kingdoms known as the Heptarchy: East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex and Wessex.  The Viking invasions shattered the pattern of the English kingdoms.  The English lands were finally unified in the 10th century in a reconquest completed by King Athelstan in AD 927.

The Anglo-Saxons knew themselves as the Angelcynn, Englisc or Engle.  These names were originally names of the Angles, but came to be used to refer to Saxons, Jutes and Frisii alike, at least in English.  They called their lands Engla land, meaing "Land of the Angles" (and when unified also Engla rice; "the Kingdom of the English").  In time the name Englaland became England.

During the Heptarchy, the most powerful King among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might become acknowledged as Bretwalda, a high king over the other kings.  The decline of Mercia allowed Wessex to become more powerful.  It absorbed the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex in AD 825.  The Kings of Wessex became increasingly dominant over the other kingdoms of England during the 9th century.

In AD 827, Northumbria submitted to Egbert of Wessex at Dore.  It has been claimed that Egbert thereby became the first king to reign over a united England, however briefly.

In 886, King Alfred retook London, which he apparently regarded as a turning point in his reign.  The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that "all of the English people (all Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes submitted themselves to King Alfred." Asser added that "Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons, restored the city of London splendidly ... and made it habitable once more."  Alfred's "restoration" entailed reoccupying and refurbishing the nearly deserted Roman walled city, building quays along the Thames, and laying a new city street plan.  It is probably at this point that Alfred assumed the new royal style 'King of the Anglo-Saxons.'

During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by King Edred in AD 954, completing the unification of England.  At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria, (Roman Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland.

England has remained in political unity ever since.  During the reign of Ethelred II (who reigned 978–1016)—known to posterity as Ethelred the Unready—a new wave of Danish invasions was orchestrated by Sweyn I of Denmark, culminating after a quarter of a century of warfare in the Danish conquest of England in AD 1013.  But Sweyn died on 2 February 1014 and Ethelred was restored to the throne.  In 1015, Sweyn's son King Canute launched a new invasion.  The ensuing war ended with an agreement in 1016 between Canute and Ethelred's successor, Edmund Ironside, to divide England between them, but Edmund's death on 30 November of that year left England united under Danish rule.  This continued for 26 years until the death of Harthacanute in June 1042.  He was the son of Canute and Emma of Normandy (the widow of Ethelred the Unready), and had no heirs of his own; he was succeeded by his half-brother, Ethelred's son, Edward the Confessor.  The Kingdom of England was once again independent.



Norman conquest 
The peace lasted only until the death of the childless Edward in January 1066.  King Edward's brother-in-law was crowned King Harold; but Edward's cousin William the Bastard, later William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, immediately claimed the throne for himself.  William launched an invasion of England and landed in Sussex on 28 September 1066.  Harold and his army were in York following their victory against the Norwegians at the Battle of Stamford Bridge (25 September 1066) when the news reached him. 

He decided to set out without delay and confront the Norman army in Sussex so marched southwards at once, despite the army not being properly rested following the battle with the Norwegians.

The armies of Harold and William faced each other at the Battle of Hastings (14 October 1066), in which the English army, or Fyrd, was defeated, King Harold and his two brothers were slain, and William emerged as victor.  William was then able to conquer England with little further opposition.  He was not, however, planning to absorb the Kingdom into the Duchy of Normandy.  As a mere Duke, William owed allegiance to Philip I of France, whereas in the independent Kingdom of England he could rule without interference.  He was crowned King of England on 25 December 1066.  The sealing of the Magna Carta in 1215 put England on course to become a constitutional monarchy.

In 1092, King William II, son of William the Conqueror, led an invasion of Strathclyde, a Celtic kingdom in what is now southwest Scotland and Cumbria.  In doing so, he annexed what is now the county of Cumbria to England; this was the last major expansion by England into what is now considered a part of England.  Later, the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542 annexed Wales to England.

In 1124, Henry I ceded what is now southeast Scotland (called Lothian) to the Kingdom of Scotland, in return for the King of Scotland's loyalty.  This area of land had been English since its foundation in 927 AD, and before that had been a part of the Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria.  Lothian contained what later became the Scottish capital, Edinburgh.  This arrangement was later finalised in 1237 by the Treaty of York.

The Kingdom of England and the Duchy of Normandy remained in personal union until 1204.  King John, a fourth-generation descendant of William, lost the continental possessions of the Duchy to Philip II of France during that year.  A few remnants of Normandy, including the Channel Islands, remained in the possession of King John, together with most of the Duchy of Aquitaine.
 
Norman conquest of Wales 
Up to the time of the Norman conquest of Anglo-Saxon England, Wales had remained for the most part independent of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, although some Welsh kings did sometimes acknowledge the Bretwalda.

However, soon after the Norman conquest of England, some of the Norman lords began to attack Wales. They conquered parts of it, which they ruled, acknowledging the overlordship of the Norman kings of England, but with considerable local independence.  Over many years these "Marcher Lords" conquered more and more of Wales, against considerable resistance led by various Welsh princes, who also often acknowledged the overlordship of the Norman kings of England.

King John's grandson Edward I of England defeated Llywelyn the Last, and so effectively conquered Wales, in 1282.  {He created} the title Prince of Wales for his eldest son Edward II in 1301. 

Edward's conquest was brutal and the subsequent repression considerable, as the magnificent Welsh castles such as Conwy, Harlech and Caernarfon attest; but this event re-united under a single ruler the lands of Roman Britain for the first time since the establishment of the kingdom of the Jutes in Kent in the 5th century AD, some 700 years before.

Accordingly, this was a highly significant moment in the history of medieval England, as it re-established links with the pre-Saxon past. 

These links were exploited for political purposes to unite the peoples of the kingdom, including the Anglo-Normans, by popularising Welsh legends.

The Welsh language—derived from the British language, with significant Latin influences—continued to be spoken by the majority of the population of Wales for at least another 500 years, and is still today a majority language in parts of the country.
 

Loss of the Angevin Empire and the Wars of the Roses 
Edward III of England, son of Edward II, was the first English king to have a claim to the throne of France.  Edward III pursued this claim, which resulted in the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453).  The war pitted five Kings of England of the House of Plantagenet against five Kings of France of the Capetian House of Valois. 

Though the English had numerous celebrated victories, they were unable to overcome the numerical superiority of the French. 

England was defeated, retaining only a single town in France, Calais.  Fifteenth-century miniature depicting the English victory over France at the Battle of Agincourt.

During the Hundred Years War an English identity began to develop in place of the previous division between the Norman Lords and their Anglo-Saxon subjects, in consequence of sustained hostility to the increasingly nationalist French, whose kings and other leaders (notably the charismatic Joan of Arc) used a developing sense of French identity to help draw people to their cause.  The Anglo-Normans became separate from their cousins, who held lands mainly in France, who mocked the former for their archaic and bastardised spoken French.  English also became the language of the law courts during this period.

The Kingdom had little time to recover before entering the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487), a series of civil wars over possession of the throne between the House of Lancaster (whose heraldic symbol was the red rose) and the House of York (whose symbol was the white rose), each led by different branches of the descendants of Edward III.  The end of these wars found the throne held by the descendant of an initially illegitimate member of the House of Lancaster, married to the eldest daughter of the House of York: Henry VII of England and his Queen consort, Elizabeth of York. 

They were the founders of the Tudor dynasty, which ruled the Kingdom from 1485 to 1603.
 

Tudors and Stuarts 
Wales had retained a separate legal and administrative system, which had been established by Edward I in the late 13th century. 

Under the Tudor monarchy, which was of Welsh origin, Henry VIII of England—a son of Henry VII—replaced the laws of Wales with those of England (under the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542). 

Wales now ceased to be a personal fiefdom divided between the Prince of Wales and Earl of March, and was instead annexed to the Kingdom of England, and henceforth was represented in the Parliament of England.

During the 1530s, Henry VIII overthrew the power of the Roman Catholic Church within the kingdom, replacing the Pope as head of the English church, and seizing the church's lands, thereby beginning the creation of a new Protestant religion. This had the effect of aligning England with Scotland, which also gradually adopted a Protestant religion, whereas the most important continental powers, France and Spain, remained Roman Catholic.
In 1541, during Henry VIII's reign, the Parliament of Ireland proclaimed him King of Ireland, thereby bringing the Kingdom of Ireland into personal union with the Kingdom of England.
 
Portrait of Elizabeth made to commemorate the defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588), depicted in the background. Elizabeth's international power is symbolised by the hand resting on the globe.

During the reign of Mary I of England, eldest daughter of Henry VIII, Calais—the last remaining continental possession of the kingdom—was lost: captured by the French, under Francis, Duke of Guise, on 7 January 1558.

Henry VIII's younger daughter, Elizabeth I of England, consolidated the new Protestant Church of England.  She also began to build up the kingdom's naval strength, on the foundations her father had laid down.  In 1588 her new navy was strong enough to defeat the Spanish Armada, which had sought to invade England in order to put a Catholic monarch on the throne in her place.

The House of Tudor ended with the death of Elizabeth I on 24 March 1603.  James VI, King of Scots (a descendant of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's sister), from Scotland's House of Stuart, ascended the throne of England, becoming King James I of England.  He was a Protestant.  Despite the Union of the Crowns, the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland remained separate and independent states under this personal union: a state of affairs which lasted for more than a century.

The Stuart kings, however, overestimated the power of the English monarchy, and were cast down by Parliament in 1645 and 1688.  In the first instance, Charles I's introduction of new forms of taxation, in defiance of Parliament, led to the English Civil War (1641–45), in which the king was defeated, and to the consequent abolition of the monarchy under Oliver Cromwell, during the interregnum of 1649–1660.  Henceforth, the monarch could reign only at the will of Parliament.

Following the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, an attempt by James II (a son of Charles I) to reintroduce Roman Catholicism—a century after its suppression by the Tudors—led to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, in which he was deposed by Parliament.  The Crown was then offered by Parliament to James II's daughter and son-in-law/nephew, Protestant princes of Orange, William III and Mary II.

In 1707, Acts of Union were passed by both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England, to ratify the 1706 Treaty of Union, and bring into being {the new Kingdom of Great Britain}.  Queen Anne, the last monarch of the House of Stuart, became the first monarch of the new kingdom.  The English and Scottish Parliaments were merged into the Parliament of Great Britain, located in Westminster, London.  {At this point England ceased to exist} as a separate political entity, and since then has had no national government. {The laws of England were unaffected, with the legal jurisdiction continuing to be that of England and Wales,} while Scotland continued to have its own laws and law courts.  This continued after the Act of Union of 1800 between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (which would later become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).


Commonwealth and Protectorate
Cromwell at Dunbar.  Oliver Cromwell united the whole of the British Isles by force and created the Commonwealth of England.

England was a monarchy for the entirety of its political existence, from its creation around 927 AD up until the 1707 Acts of Union, except for the eleven years of the English Interregnum (1649 to 1660) which followed the English Civil War.

The rule of the executed King Charles I was replaced by that of a republic known as the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653). 

The most prominent General of the republic's New Model Army, Oliver Cromwell, managed to extend its rule to Ireland and Scotland.

The victorious Cromwell eventually turned against the republic, and established a new form of government known as The Protectorate, with himself as Lord Protector until his death on 3 September 1658. 

He was succeeded by his son Richard Cromwell. However, anarchy eventually developed, as Richard proved unable to maintain his rule.  He resigned his title and retired into obscurity.

The Commonwealth was then re-established, but proved to be unstable, so the exiled claimant, Charles II, was recalled to the throne by Parliament in 1660 in the English Restoration.
Union with Scotland

In the Scottish case, the attractions were partly financial and partly to do with removing English trade sanctions put in place through the Alien Act 1705.  The English were more anxious about the Royal succession.  The death of King William III in 1702 had led to the succession of Queen Anne to the crowns of England and Scotland, but her only surviving child had died in 1700, and the English Act of Settlement 1701 had given the Succession to the English crown to the Protestant House of Hanover.  Securing the same succession in Scotland became the primary object of English strategic thinking towards Scotland.  By 1704, the Union of the Crowns was in crisis, with the Scottish Act of Security allowing for the Scottish Parliament to choose a different monarch, which could in turn lead to an independent foreign policy during a major European war.  The English establishment did not wish to risk a Stuart on the Scottish throne, nor the possibility of a Scottish military alliance with another power.

A Treaty of Union was agreed on 22 July 1706, and following the Acts of Union of 1707, which created the Kingdom of Great Britain, the independence of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland came to an end on 1 May 1707.  The Acts of Union also created a customs union and monetary union and provided that any "laws and statutes" that were "contrary to or inconsistent with the terms" of the Acts would "cease and become void."

Anne was succeeded by her second cousin George I of the House of Hanover, who was a descendant of the Stuarts through his maternal grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of James I and VI.

Human Life - Life of Work-Life of OFFICE

1. Human Life - The Creator (GOD),
2. Human Life - Sovereign, Man and Woman 

If the highest judges in the land should ever rule that man-made regulations should be allowed to be imposed over the natural justice of our common law, then let the people march these judges to a scaffold – to be hanged - as an example of what should happen to those who would oppress us for their personal gain or the gain of a controlling elite.  This should help to remind others just who they are employed to serve.
     =========================================
FICTIONS - STATUTES, ACTS, RULES, REGULATIONS, LAWS, COMMERCIAL LAW
3. Life of OFFICE-The King or Queen,
4. Life of OFFICE-Governments, European Union,
5. Life of OFFICE-Citizen, Person

Questions - Real or FICTIONAL, belive or NOT believe

 - Questions - Real or FICTIONAL, belive or NOT believe
  
1. Who are YOU?.....>>>Man or Woman, Citizen or Person.
2. What are YOU?.....>>>Human Being, Citizen or Person.
3. What is money?.....>>>FIAT.
4. Where do YOU live?.....>>>Within the skin of your Body.
5. Where do YOU come from?.....>>>I come from the Creator (GOD).
 
6. Who created YOU?.....>>>The creater (GOD).
7. Where does Money come from?.....>>>FICTION-Out of thin air.
8. What is the Birth Certificate?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
9. Did you create the Birth Certificate?.....>>>NO!. 
10. What YOU create is yours, What others create is theirs.
11. What are the police?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
12. What are, STATUTES, ACTS, Laws?.....>>>A FICTION created FICTION, FICTION is a Dead Entity.

13. What is real?.....>>>Real is the Man and Woman.
14. What is a FICTION?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity, a corruption to Man and Woman.

15. Do FICTIONS have real people?.....>>>YES, but they become FICTIONS as soon as they start working for that ENTITY, then they become part of that dead entity, within that FICTION, they now are that dead entity.  Real people, Man and Woman are the only living Human Beings, that do not work for an FICTION, they work for the real Man and Woman.
 
16. What are Religions?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
17. Who is the Queen?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
18. What is a CORPORATION?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
19. What is a Hospital?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
20. What is a Citizen or Person?.....>>>FICTION is a Dead Entity.
21. What are YOU?.....>>>YOU, Sovereign Man and Woman.
22. Who had power over a Sovereign?.....>>>GOD.
23. Who has the power over a FICTION?.....>>>Man and Woman.
24. Who is in charge of me?.....>>>YOU are. 
25. Are we Bankrupt?.....>>>YES.
26. Do we owe anything?.....>>>NO, the creator (GOD) give us what we need.  Only the FICTIONS owe things.

27. Who am i again?.....>>>you are YOU, everything, the judge, the wealth, the wisdom and Knowledge, REAL.

There are No Laws but the Law of  GOD the Real Man and Real Woman who create there own laws.  Other Laws are for FICTIONS.

By Omission or Commission, You are Guilty

If you use a REGISTERED NAME, you are a FOREIGN COLONIZER/INVADER and guilty of crimes by Omission or Commission for, of and for THE CITY OF LONDON, STATE which by virtue of OWNERSHIP by THE HOLY SEE/ VATICAN CITY/ THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and are guilty as follows;

1. By swearing, attesting, agreeing, affirming, recognizing, aligning or allying with, via oath or ignorant acquiescence to any and/or all aforementioned CORPORATIONS/INSTITUTIONS you are hereby guilty by association with all associated criminal activities including but not limited to GENOCIDE, WARS OF AGGRESION, MURDER, SLAVERY, FRAUD, THEFT AND ALL CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY etc.  et al and;

2. With any and all use of a NAME that is in BOND FORM and REGISTERED with the CROWN you are, in fact committing FRAUD since BIRTH via the BIRTH CERTIFICATE and are in fact, a slave to the aforementioned entities and;

3. Any use of GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION is, in fact, fraud since a BIRTH CERTIFICATE cannot be used for identification purposes as stated clearly on the original or copied document.  ALL GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION is created from the BOND INSTRUMENT COPY.  You do not have, nor will you ever see the ORIGINAL because it was sold and the copy ACTS merely as the proof of sale and is, in fact, a receipt only for the sale of the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of the NAME that belongs to the CROWN CORPORATION and;

4. Any attempt to ask, force, coerce, threaten etc.  et al anyone who knows this truth is, in fact, aiding and abetting a fraudulent action and is guilty of a crime upon that act and furthermore by IDENTIFYING themselves with this fictional CROWN CORPORATION OWNED NAME via GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION of any kind, they are ACTING in fraud ab initio and;

5. Unum Sanctum Papal Bull of 1302 fraudulently claimed all TITLE and PROPERTY on, over and under the Earth with the fraud being only in the fictional realms of “legal” where real laws are known and never written by the hand of man.  THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE has claimed only TITLE and PROPERTY which includes but is not limited to anything and all things in the illusion of fictional CORPORATE realms or Juris-Fiction which is inferior to the living beings true Jurisdiction.  A puppet cannot speak without a willing puppeteer attached and is hereby exorcised and;

6. ALL CONTRACTS created in the illusion of CORPORATE veils are, in fact, FRAUD absolute be they knowingly or unknowingly entered into with the pretense to defraud a living being by means of a CORPORATE TITLE/NAME or any and all such fashions of JOINDER, assumed or presumed by the offending party through a willful or ignorant ACT and;

7. All CITY OF LONDON (CROWN) /VATICAN CITY(HOLY SEE)/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AGENTS/OFFICIALS/OFFICERS/BAR MEMBERS etc. et al are, in fact, ALIEN/FOREIGN/COLONIZERS with no rights upon the lands beyond their own fictional borders and as such have NO FOREIGN IMMUNITY as the invaders they are upon the rest of this world inasmuch as they have either SWORN/VOWED/OATHED/AFFIRMED/ATTESTED etc.  et al their allegiance with one or all aforementioned CORPORATE FICTIONAL REALMS and;

8. By virtue of the original fraud and deceptive claims made by any and all affiliated entities past, present and future as their being “god/god’s representative/deity” on Earth are hereby exposed for this manifest fraud upon all of humanity whereby anyone believing in or accepting “their god” made them subject to their “god’s” laws and commandments as were written by them to accept the punishments as dictated by those that perpetrated this heinous concept of “religion” to enslave, foment genocide, create wars and thus murder countless innocents on this Earth in the NAME of their “god” and are hereby guilty of these crimes under Universal Law where ALL stand under and;

9. Once a FRAUD is revealed, it is NULL and VOID, nunc pro tunc as per their own dictums and “LEGAL MAXIMS/ACTS/STATUTES/CONSTITUTIONS ” etc.  et al and that they must abide by their own ROMAN LAW MAXIM of “those who make the laws, obey the laws” lest they be in complete DISHONOUR ab initio, ad infinitum.

By commission or omission of acting in a crime, you are party to that crime for its commission and are as guilty as if you committed the crime yourself if you do nothing to stop it.  If you know of a crime and do not act upon the truth to bring the guilty to the light, you are aiding and abetting in any crimes you are aware of and do not take actions to thwart or bring to the light of truth.  By virtue of this knowledge it is now incumbent upon you, the living man/woman to make a free will choice and choose your path henceforth.  Upon you NOW lies the full weight of truth in all your actions towards your fellow mankind on every land upon this Earth. 

Where you have chosen, the unseen forces of this Universe have also chosen by virtue of the most precious of all laws being FREE WILL where NONE may TRESPASS.  May you be wise and free in your choice where the Universe shall gift you accordingly for whichever path you choose.

Note: All past, present and future evidence will be given to your authorities to pass judgement whereas in my jurisdiction I judge
not lest I be judged.

Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum

Jurisdiction

Original Article: " Jurisdiction" http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisdiction
     ==========================================
The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.

Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons.  In the law, jurisdiction sometimes refers to a particular geographic area containing a defined legal authority.  For example, the federal government is a jurisdiction unto itself.  Its power spans the entire United States.  Each state is also a jurisdiction unto itself, with the power to pass its own laws.  Smaller geographic areas, such as counties and cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers that are independent of the federal and state governments.

Jurisdiction also may refer to the origin of a court's authority.  A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction.  A court of general jurisdiction is a trial court that is empowered to hear all cases that are not specifically reserved for courts of special jurisdiction.  A court of special jurisdiction is empowered to hear only certain kinds of cases.

Courts of general jurisdiction are often called district courts or superior courts.  In New York State, however, the court of general jurisdiction is called the Supreme Court of New York.  In most jurisdictions, other trial courts of special jurisdiction exist apart from the courts of general jurisdiction; some examples are probate, tax, traffic, juvenile, and, in some cities, Drug Courts.  At the federal level, the district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Federal courts of special jurisdiction include the u.s. tax court and the Bankruptcy courts.

Jurisdiction can also be used to define the proper court in which to bring a particular case.  In this context, a court has either original or appellate jurisdiction over a case.  When the court has original jurisdiction, it is empowered to conduct a trial in the case.  When the court has appellate jurisdiction, it may only review the trial court proceedings for error.

Generally, courts of general and special jurisdiction have original jurisdiction over most cases, and appeals courts and the jurisdiction's highest court have appellate jurisdiction, but this is not always the case.  For example, under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is a court of appellate jurisdiction.  However, under the same clause, that court has original jurisdiction in cases between states.  Such cases usually concern disputes over boundaries and waterways.

Finally, jurisdiction refers to the inherent authority of a court to hear a case and to declare a judgment.  When a plaintiff seeks to initiate a suit, he or she must determine where to file the complaint. 

The plaintiff must file suit in a court that has jurisdiction over the case.  If the court does not have jurisdiction, the defendant may challenge the suit on that ground, and the suit may be dismissed, or its result may be overturned in a subsequent action by one of the parties in the case.

A plaintiff may file suit in federal court; however, state courts generally have concurrent jurisdiction.  Concurrent jurisdiction means that both the state and federal court have jurisdiction over the matter.

If a claim can be filed in either state or federal court, and the plaintiff files the claim in state court, the defendant may remove the case to federal court (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1441 et seq.).  This is a tactical decision.  Federal court proceedings are widely considered to be less susceptible to bias because the jury pool is drawn from the entire state, not just from the local community.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction in most cases.  Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction in a limited number of cases, such as federal criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent, Copyright, and some admiralty cases, as well as suits against the U.S. government.

Under federal and state laws and court rules, a court may exercise its inherent authority only if it has two types of jurisdiction: personal and subject matter.  Personal Jurisdiction is the authority that a court has over the parties in the case.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction is a court's authority over the particular claim or controversy.

State Civil Court Jurisdiction 
Personal Jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction is based on territorial concepts. That is, a court can gain personal jurisdiction over a party only if the party has a connection to the geographic area in which the court sits.  Traditionally, this connection was satisfied only by the presence of the defendant in the state where the court sat.   

Since the late nineteenth century, notions of personal jurisdiction have expanded beyond territorial concepts, and courts may gain personal jurisdiction over defendants on a number of grounds. 

However, the territorial basis remains a reliable route to establishing personal jurisdiction.

A person who has a civil claim may file suit in a court that is located in his or her home state.  If the defendant lives in the same state, the court will have no trouble gaining personal jurisdiction. 

The plaintiff must simply serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint that was filed with the court.  Once this is accomplished, the court has personal jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and the defendant.  If the defendant lives outside the state, the plaintiff may serve the defendant with the process papers when the defendant appears in the state.

If the defendant lives outside the state and does not plan to re-enter the state, the court may gain personal jurisdiction in other ways. 

Most states have a Long-Arm Statute.  This type of statute allows a state court to gain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who (1) transacts business within the state, (2) commits a tort within the state, (3) commits a tort outside the state that causes an injury within the state, or (4) owns, uses, or possesses real property within the state.

The emergence of the Internet as a way to communicate ideas and sell products has led to disputes over whether state long-arm statutes can be used to acquire personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.  In Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp.1119 (W.D.Pa.1997), a U.S. District Court proposed that a long-arm statute could be used only when the defendant has either actively marketed a product or the web site has a degree of interactivity that suggests the website seeks to do business. 

Conversely, a passive web site, where information is merely posted, would not subject a person to the reach of a long-arm statute.

In Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.4th 262, 58 P.3d 2, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 329 (Cal. 2002), the California Supreme Court ruled that an out-of-state web site operator who had posted software that allowed users to decrypt and copy digital versatile discs (DVDs) containing motion pictures could not be sued in California state court.  The operator, who lived in Texas, did not solicit business or have any commercial contact with anyone in California.  The court relied on the Zippo sliding scale and concluded that Pavlovich fell into the passive category.  The web site "merely posts information and has no interactive features.  There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the site targeted California.  Indeed, there is no evidence that any California resident ever visited, much less downloaded" the software.  Even if he had known that the software would encourage Piracy, this substantive issue did not effect the threshold question of jurisdiction.  Therefore, the lawsuit had to be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Minnesota Supreme Court took up the question of Internet jurisdiction in the context of a Defamation lawsuit in Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002).  Katherine Griffis, a resident of Alabama, filed a defamation lawsuit against Marianne Luban, a Minnesota resident, in Alabama state court.  Griffis won a default judgment of $25,000 for statements that Luban had made on the Internet.  Luban elected not to appear in the Alabama proceeding, and Griffis then filed her judgment in the Minnesota county where Luban resided.  Luban then filed a lawsuit challenging the judgment for want of personal jurisdiction.  The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the key jurisdiction question was whether Luban had targeted the state of Alabama when she made her defamatory statements.  The Court found that while Luban knew that Griffis lived in Alabama, she had not "expressly aimed" her statements at the state of Alabama. Instead, she had published these statements to a specialized Internet newsgroup, one that only had Griffis as a member from Alabama.  The court stated: "The fact that messages posted to the newsgroup could have been read in Alabama, just as they could have been read anywhere in the world, cannot suffice to establish Alabama as the focal point of the defendant's conduct." 

Therefore, Griffis had not established personal jurisdiction over Luban in Alabama, and the Minnesota state courts were not obliged to enforce the Alabama judgment.

If an out-of-state defendant caused an injury while driving inside the state, the court may gain personal jurisdiction over the defendant on the theory that the defendant consented to such jurisdiction by driving on the state's roads.  Many states have statutes that create such Implied Consent to personal jurisdiction.

When the defendant is a corporation, it is always subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of the state in which it is incorporated.  If the corporation has sufficient contacts in other states, courts in those states may hold that the out-of-state corporation has consented to personal jurisdiction through its contacts with the state.  For example, a corporation that solicits business in other states or maintains offices in other states may be subject to suit in those states, even if the corporation is not headquartered or incorporated in those states. A corporation's transaction of business in a foreign state is a sufficient contact to establish personal jurisdiction.

In actions concerning real property located within the state, state courts may use additional means to gain personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.  A state court may gain personal jurisdiction over all parties, regardless of their physical location, in a dispute over the title to real property.  This type of personal jurisdiction is called in rem, or "against the thing."  Personal jurisdiction over all parties interested in the real property is gained not through the parties but through the presence of the land in the court's jurisdiction.

If a court cannot gain personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the plaintiff may be forced to sue the defendant in the state in which the defendant resides or in the state where the injury occurred.  For example, a plaintiff who was injured outside his or her home state may have to file suit in the defendant's home state or in the state where the injury occurred if the defendant has no plans to enter the plaintiff's home state.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction Courts of general jurisdiction have subject matter jurisdiction over the majority of civil claims, including actions involving torts, contracts, unpaid debt, and Civil Rights violations.  Courts of general jurisdiction do not have subject matter jurisdiction over claims or controversies that are reserved for courts of special jurisdiction.  For example, in a state that has a probate court, all claims involving wills and estates must be brought in the probate court, not in a court of general jurisdiction.

In some cases, a claim must first be heard by a special administrative board before it can be heard by a court.  For example, a Workers' Compensation claim in most states must be heard by a workers' compensation board before it can be heard in a court of general jurisdiction.

Another consideration in establishing subject matter jurisdiction is the amount in controversy.  This is the total of all claims, counterclaims, and cross-claims in the suit.  (A counterclaim is a claim by a defendant against a plaintiff; a cross-claim is a claim by a plaintiff against another plaintiff, or by a defendant against another defendant.)  In most jurisdictions, if the amount in controversy does not exceed a certain limit, the case must be heard by a court other than a court of general jurisdiction.  This court is usually called a Small Claims Court.  The rules in such a court limit the procedures that are available to the parties so that the court can obtain a simple and speedy resolution to the dispute.


Federal Civil Court Jurisdiction
Personal Jurisdiction To obtain personal jurisdiction over the parties, a federal court follows the procedural rules of the state in which it sits.  For example, a federal court in Michigan follows the Michigan state court rules governing personal jurisdiction. The court examines the usual factors in establishing personal jurisdiction, such as the physical location of the parties, the reach of the state's long-arm statute, any consent to personal jurisdiction by the defendant, or the location of real property in a dispute over real property.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction In some cases a plaintiff may file suit in federal court.  These cases are limited to (1) claims arising from the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes (federal question jurisdiction), (2) claims brought by or against the federal government, and (3) claims in which all opposing parties live in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (diversity jurisdiction).  A federal court obtains subject matter jurisdiction over a case if the case meets one or more of these three requirements.

Claims arising from the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes Federal question jurisdiction is covered in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.  This statute provides that federal district courts have "original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."  Some claims are expressly identified as federal in the Constitution.  These claims include those involving Ambassadors and Consuls or public ministers, admiralty and maritime claims, and claims made by or against the federal government.  Claims that are based on federal law also may be filed in federal court.  An action against the federal government based on the Negligence of a federal employee, for example, is authorized by the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 842 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), 2674]).

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 153 L. Ed. 2d 13 (2002), issued a landmark decision on "arising under" jurisdiction of the federal courts.  The case involved patent law litigation between two competitors, with the plaintiff filing a Declaratory Judgment action in federal district court asking the court to declare that the plaintiff had not infringed the defendant's Trade Dress.  This action was not based on a federal law but the defendant's counterclaim, in which it invoked federal patent law to allege patent infringement by the plaintiff, seemed to give the court "arising under" jurisdiction.  The Court thought otherwise, ruling that the counterclaim did not confer federal jurisdiction and that the case must be dismissed.  This decision limits the "arising under" jurisdiction of the federal courts and gives state courts the opportunity to hear copyright and patent actions (through a defendant's counterclaim) that have always been heard in the federal courts.

Some cases may combine federal and state issues.  In such cases, no clear test exists to determine whether a party may file suit in or remove a suit to federal court.  Generally, federal courts will decline jurisdiction if a claim is based predominantly on state law. 

For example, assume that a plaintiff is embroiled in a property dispute with a neighbor.  The plaintiff files suit against the neighbor, alleging state-law claims of Nuisance, Trespass, breach of contract, and assault.  A state official advises the plaintiff that the property belongs to the neighbor (the defendant).  If the plaintiff sues the state official in the same suit, alleging a constitutional violation such as the uncompensated taking of property, a federal court may refuse jurisdiction because the case involves predominantly state law.

Federal courts may decline jurisdiction on other grounds if a state court has concurrent jurisdiction.  When they do so, they are said to abstain, because they are refraining from exercising their jurisdiction.  Federal courts tend to abstain from cases that require the interpretation of state law, if state courts can decide those cases.  Federal courts abstain in order to avoid answering unnecessary constitutional questions, to avoid conflict with state courts, and to avoid making errors in determining the meaning of state laws.

Claims brought by or against the federal government Generally, the United States may sue in federal court if its claim is based on federal law.  For example, if the federal government seeks to seize the property of a defendant in a drug case, it must base the action on the federal Forfeiture statute, not on the forfeiture statute of the state in which the property lies.

Generally, state and federal governments have Sovereign Immunity, which means that they may not be sued.  However, state and federal governments may consent to suit.  At the federal level, Congress has removed the government's Immunity for injuries resulting from the negligent and, in some cases, intentional conduct of federal agencies, federal officers, and other federal employees (60 Stat. 842 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), 2674, 2680]).  Generally, the federal government is liable only for injuries resulting from the performance of official government duties.

If Congress has not waived federal immunity to certain suits, a person nevertheless may file suit against the agents, officers, or employees personally.  For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal agents, officers, and employees who violate constitutional rights may be sued for damages in federal court (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 [1971]).

Claims in which all opposing parties live in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 Diversity cases provide federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.  A civil case qualifies as a federal diversity case if all opposing parties live in separate states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.  If the opposing parties live in the same state, the case may still qualify for federal subject matter jurisdiction if there is some remaining citizenship diversity between parties.  For example, assume that a person is acting as a stakeholder by holding property for a third party.  If ownership of the property is in dispute, the stakeholder may join the defendants in the suit to avoid liability to any of the parties.  Such a case may be filed in federal court if a defendant lives in a different state, even if one of the defendants live in the same state as the stakeholder or in the same state as the other defendants.

State and Federal Criminal Court Jurisdiction 
Personal Jurisdiction Personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established when the defendant is accused of committing a crime in the geographic area in which the court sits.  If a crime results in federal charges, the federal court that sits in the state where the offense was committed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 

In a conspiracy case, the defendants may face prosecution in any jurisdiction in which a conspiratorial act took place.  This can include a number of states if at least one conspirator crossed state lines or if the conspiracy involved criminal acts in more than one state.  Kidnapping is another crime that can establish personal jurisdiction in courts in more than one state, if it involves crossing state lines.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction In criminal cases, the question of jurisdiction is relatively simple.  Subject matter jurisdiction is easily decided because criminal courts or the courts of general jurisdiction have automatic subject matter jurisdiction over criminal cases.  In most states, minor crimes may be tried in one court, and more serious crimes in another.  In Idaho, for example, criminal cases are tried in the district courts.  However, misdemeanor cases may be assigned by the district court to a magistrate (Idaho Code § 1-2208 [1996]). (A magistrate is a judge who is authorized to hear minor civil cases and to decide criminal matters without a jury.)

The major question in criminal subject matter jurisdiction is whether the charges are pursuant to federal or state law.  If the charges allege a violation of federal Criminal Law, the defendant will be tried in a federal court that is located in the state in which the offense was committed.  If the charges allege a violation of state law, the defendant will face prosecution in a trial court that has jurisdiction over the area in which the offense was committed.  If a crime violates both federal and state law, the defendant may be tried twice: once in state court, and once in federal court.

Venue 
Venue is similar to, but separate from, jurisdiction.  The venue of a case is the physical location of the courthouse in which the case is tried.  If more than one court has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over a case, the court that first receives the case can send the case, upon request of one of the parties, to a court in another jurisdiction.  Unlike jurisdiction, venue does not involve a determination of a court's inherent authority to hear a case.

Further readings
Meslar, Roger W., ed. 1990. Legalines Civil Procedure. 3d ed. Chicago, Ill.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal and Professional Publications.

Wildasin, Mark H., and Richard A. Jones. 2001. "Internet Jurisdiction." Journal of Internet Law (December).

Cross-references
Diversity of Citizenship.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Ads by Google
40+ Funeral Plans

Official Website Of The UKs Largest Independent Funeral Plan Provider
www.GoldenCharter.co.uk
 
jurisdiction n. the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.  It is vital to determine before a lawsuit is filed which court has jurisdiction.  State courts have jurisdiction over matters within that state, and different levels of courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits involving different amounts of money.   

For example, Superior Courts (called District or County courts in several states) generally have sole control of lawsuits for larger sums of money, domestic relations (divorces), probate of estates of deceased persons, guardianships, conservatorships, and trials of felonies.  In some states (like New York) probate and certain other matters are within the jurisdiction of so-called Surrogate Courts. 

Municipal courts (or other local courts) have jurisdiction over cases involving lesser amounts of money, misdemeanors (crimes not punishable by state prison), traffic matters, and preliminary hearings on felony charges to determine if there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial by the superior court.  Some states have police courts to handle misdemeanors.  Jurisdiction in the courts of a particular state may be determined by the location of real property in a state (in rem jurisdiction), or whether the parties are located within the state (in personam jurisdiction).  Thus, a probate of Marsha Blackwood's estate would be in Idaho where she lived and died, but jurisdiction over her title to real estate in Utah will be under the jurisdiction of the Utah courts.  Federal courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits between citizens of different states, cases based on federal statutes such as fair labor standards and anti-trust violations, charges of federal crimes, appeals from bankruptcy proceedings, maritime cases, or legal actions involving federal constitutional questions.  Sometimes regulatory agencies have the initial jurisdiction before any legal action may be filed in court. 

More than one court may have concurrent jurisdiction, such as both state and federal courts, and the lawyer filing the lawsuit may have to make a tactical decision as to which jurisdiction is more favorable or useful to his/her cause, including time to get to trial, the potential pool of jurors, or other considerations.  Appellate jurisdiction is given by statute to appeals courts to hear appeals about the judgment of the lower court that tried a case, and to order reversal or other correction if error is found. State appeals are under the jurisdiction of the state appellate courts, while appeals from federal district courts are within the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal and eventually the Supreme Court.  Jurisdiction is not be confused with "venue," which means the best place to try a case. 

Thus, any state court may have jurisdiction over a matter, but the "venue" is in a particular county.  (See: superior court, municipal court, police court, district court, supreme court, venue)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.
Ads by Google
Divorce Law Specialist
Professional Divorce Solicitors. Client Satisfaction Assured.
anthonyclark.co.uk
 
jurisdiction noun authority, authority to hear and decide a case, capacity to decide the matter in issue, capaccty to hear the controversy, command, control, decisionnaking power over the case, domain, domination, extent of authority, grasp, legal authority, legal power, legal power to decide a case, legal right, power, province, purview, range, reach, realm, reign, sphere, superintendence, supervision, territorial range of authority, territory
Associated concepts: basis jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction, connurrent jurisdiction, court of competent jurisdiction, equity jurisdiction, exclusive jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, in personam jurisdiction, in rem jurisdiction, inherent jurisdiction, jurisdiction of the court, jurisdiction over the person, jurisdictional amount, jurisdictional defect, jurisdictional dispute, jurisdictional facts, jurisdictional plea, jurisdictional requirement, jurisdictional statement, lack of jurisdiction, limited jurisdiction, original jurisdiction, pendent jurisdiction, primary jurisdiction, quasi in rem jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, submission to jurisdiction, venue, want of jurisdiction
 

Foreign phrases: Est boni judicis ampliare jurisdictionem. It is the duty of a good judge to extend the jurisdiction.  Extra territorium jus dicenti impune non paretur.  One exxrcising jurisdiction outside of his territorial limits cannot be obeyed with impunity.  Jurisdictio est potestas de publico introducta, cum necessitate juris dicendi.  

Jurisdiction is a power introduced for the public good, on account of the necessity of administering justice.  Quaelibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet.  Every jurisdiction has its own bounds.  Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi, habet juuisdictionem ligandi.  He who has jurisdiction to release, has jurisdiction to bind.  Rerum ordo confunditur si unicuique jurisdictio non servetur.  The order of things is confused if everyone does not give heed to his own jurissiction.  Ubi est forum, ibi ergo est jus.  Where the forum is, there the law is accordingly.  Judici officium suum exceeenti non paretur.  No obedience is to be given to a judge exceeding his office or jurisdiction.  Est boni judicis ampliire jurisdictionem.  It is the duty of a good judge to interrret his jurisdiction liberally.  In personam actio est, qua cum eo agimus qui obligatus est nobis ad faciendum aliquid vel dandum.  The action in personam is that in which we sue him who is under obligation to us to do something or give something.  In omni actione ubi duae concurrunt districtiones, videlicet, in rem et in perronam, illa districtio tenenda est quae magis timetur et magis ligat.  In every action where two distresses concur, that is to say, in rem and in personam, that is to be chosen which is most dreaded, and which binds more firmly.  Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse videntur, sine quibus jurisdictio explicari non potest.  Those things without which jurisdiction could not be exercised are held to be given to each to whom jurisdiction has been granted.  Debet quis juri subjacere ubi delinquit.  Everyone ought to be subject to the law of the place where he commits an offense.  Nihil habet forum ex scena.  The court has nothingto do with what is not before it.  Judicium a non suo judice datum nullius est momenti.  A judgment rendered by one who is not the proper judge is of no force.
 
See also: administration, agency, ambit, area, authority, bailiwick, capacity, charge, circuit, control, custody, department, direction, domain, dominion, generalship, government, guidance, judicature, occupation, possession, power, predominance, primacy, province, realm, right, sphere, supervision, venue


Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Ads by Google
Irwin Mitchell
Speak To Our Experienced Personal Injury Solicitors About Your Claim.
www.IrwinMitchell.com/IM
 

JURISDICTION, Practice.  A power constitutionally conferred upon a judge or magistrate, to take cognizance of, and decide causes according to law, and to carry his sentence into execution.  6 Pet. 591; 9 John. 239.  The tract of land or district within which a judge or magistrate has jurisdiction, is called his territory, and his power in relation to his territory is called his territorial jurisdiction.
     

2. Every act of jurisdiction exercised by a judge without his territory, either by pronouncing sentence or carrying it into execution, is null.  An inferior court has no jurisdiction beyond what is expressly delegated.  1 Salk. 404, n.; Gilb. C. P. 188; 1 Saund. 73; 2 Lord Raym. 1311; and see Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C, et seq; Bac. Ab. Pleas, E 2.
     
3. Jurisdiction is original, when it is conferred on the court in the first instance, which is called original jurisdiction; (q.v.) or it is appellate, which is when an appeal is given from the judgment of another court.  Jurisdiction is also civil, where the subject-matter to be tried is not of a criminal nature; or criminal, where the court is to punish crimes.  Some courts and magistrates have both civil and criminal jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction is also concurrent, exclusive, or assistant.  Concurrent jurisdiction is that which may be entertained by several courts.  It is a rule that in cases of concurrent jurisdictions, that which is first seized of the case shall try it to the exclusion of the other.  Exclusive jurisdiction is that which has alone the power to try or determine the Suit, action, or matter in dispute.  assistant jurisdiction is that which is afforded by a court of chancery, in aid of a court of law; as, for example, by a bill of discovery, by the examination of witnesses de bene esse, or out of the jurisdiction of the court; by the perpetuation of the testimony of witnesses, and the like.
    
4. It is the law which gives jurisdiction; the consent of, parties, cannot, therefore, confer it, in a matter which the law excludes. 

  1 N. & M. 192; 3 M'Cord, 280; 1 Call. 55; 1 J. S. Marsh. 476; 1 Bibb, 263; Cooke, 27; Minor, 65; 3 Litt. 332; 6 Litt. 303; Kirby, 111; 1 Breese, 32; 2 Yerg. 441; 1 Const. R. 478.  But where the court has jurisdiction of the matter, and the defendant has some privilege which exempts him from the jurisdiction, he may wave the privilege. 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. 449; 8 Wheat. 699; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 4 M'Cord, 79; 4 Mass. 593; Wright, 484. See Hardin, 448; 2 Wash. 213.
 
5. Courts of inferior jurisdiction must act within their jurisdiction, and so it must appear upon the record.   

5 Cranch, 172 Pet. C. C. R. 36; 4 Dall. 11; 2 Mass. 213; 4 Mass. 122; 8 Mass. 86; 11 Mass. 513; Pr. Dec. 380; 2 Verm. 329; 3 Verm. 114; 10 Conn. 514; 4 John. 292; 3 Yerg. 355; Walker, 75; 9 Cowen, 227; 5 Har. & John. 36; 1 Bailey, 459; 2 Bailey, 267.  

But the legislature may, by a general or special law, provide otherwise. 

  Pet. C. C. R. 36. Vide 1 Salk. 414; Bac. Ab. Courts, &c., C. D; Id. Prerogative, E 6; Merlin, Rep. h.t.; Ayl. Pat. 317, 

and the art.  Competency.  As to the force of municipal law beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the state, see Wheat. Intern. Law, part a, c. 2, Sec. 7, et seq.; Story, Confl. of Laws, c. 2; Huberus, lib. 1, t. 3; 13 Mass. R. 4 Pard. Dr. Com. part. 6, t. 7, c. 2, Sec. 1; and the articles Conflict of Laws; Courts of the United States.  See generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t.