Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Diversity of Citizenship and A Citizen of The United States

    Încărcat de

    Dan Goodman
    120 vizualizări7 pagini
    In my work “Diversity of Citizenship and a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States”, I showed in the cases of Bondurant v. Watson (103 U.S. 281, 1880) and Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 1904) that one who is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State (Fourteenth Amendment), as well as one who is a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution), has the requisite citizenship to give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship suit. In my work “Diversity of Citizenship includes a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States”, I made the following statement: “A citizen of the United States is to identified his citizenship in a federal court by averring that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union. . . . The reason for this is that a citizen of the United States can be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, as in the case of living overseas (aboard)." In this work I show that unless one who is a citizen of the United States does not aver in a diversity of citizenship suit that he or she is a citizen of the United States that he or she will be presumed to be a citizen of a State; Brown v. Keene (33 U.S. (Peters 8) 112, 1834), and that if one is a citizen of the United States, he or she still must aver that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union in a diversity of citizenship suit; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not change this requirement; Wood v. Wagon (6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 1, 1804), Robertson v. Cease (97 U.S. 646, 1878), Steigleder v. McQuesten (198 U.S. 141, 1905).

    Titlu original

    Diversity of Citizenship and a Citizen of the United States

    Drepturi de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    In my work “Diversity of Citizenship and a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States”, I showed in the cases of Bondurant v. Watson (103 U.S. 281, 1880) and Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 1904) that one who is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State (Fourteenth Amendment), as well as one who is a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution), has the requisite citizenship to give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship suit. In my work “Diversity of Citizenship includes a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States”, I made the following statement: “A citizen of the United States is to identified his citizenship in a federal court by averring that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union. . . . The reason for this is that a citizen of the United States can be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, as in the case of living overseas (aboard)." In this work I show that unless one who is a citizen of the United States does not aver in a diversity of citizenship suit that he or she is a citizen of the United States that he or she will be presumed to be a citizen of a State; Brown v. Keene (33 U.S. (Peters 8) 112, 1834), and that if one is a citizen of the United States, he or she still must aver that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union in a diversity of citizenship suit; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not change this requirement; Wood v. Wagon (6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 1, 1804), Robertson v. Cease (97 U.S. 646, 1878), Steigleder v. McQuesten (198 U.S. 141, 1905).

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    120 vizualizări7 pagini

    Diversity of Citizenship and A Citizen of The United States

    Încărcat de

    Dan Goodman
    In my work “Diversity of Citizenship and a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States”, I showed in the cases of Bondurant v. Watson (103 U.S. 281, 1880) and Sun Printing & Publishing Association v. Edwards (194 U.S. 377, 1904) that one who is a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State (Fourteenth Amendment), as well as one who is a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution), has the requisite citizenship to give a circuit court of the United States jurisdiction in a diversity of citizenship suit. In my work “Diversity of Citizenship includes a Citizen of a State who is not a Citizen of the United States”, I made the following statement: “A citizen of the United States is to identified his citizenship in a federal court by averring that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union. . . . The reason for this is that a citizen of the United States can be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, as in the case of living overseas (aboard)." In this work I show that unless one who is a citizen of the United States does not aver in a diversity of citizenship suit that he or she is a citizen of the United States that he or she will be presumed to be a citizen of a State; Brown v. Keene (33 U.S. (Peters 8) 112, 1834), and that if one is a citizen of the United States, he or she still must aver that he or she is a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State of the Union in a diversity of citizenship suit; that the Fourteenth Amendment did not change this requirement; Wood v. Wagon (6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 1, 1804), Robertson v. Cease (97 U.S. 646, 1878), Steigleder v. McQuesten (198 U.S. 141, 1905).

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 7

    DiversityofCitizenshipanda CitizenoftheUnitedStates

    2012DanGoodman InmyworkDiversityofCitizenshipandaCitizenofaStatewhoisnotaCitizenof theUnitedStates,IshowedinthecasesofBondurantv.Watson(103U.S.281, 1880)andSunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards(194U.S.377,1904)that onewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandacitizenofaState(Fourteenth Amendment),aswellasonewhoisacitizenofaStatewhoisnotacitizenofthe UnitedStates(ArticleIV,Section2,Clause1oftheConstitution),hastherequisite citizenshiptogiveacircuitcourtoftheUnitedStatesjurisdictioninadiversityof citizenshipsuit. InmyworkDiversityofCitizenshipincludesaCitizenofaStatewhoisnota CitizenoftheUnitedStates,Imadethefollowingstatement: AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesistoidentifiedhiscitizenshipinafederalcourtby averringthatheorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateofthe Union.... ThereasonforthisisthatacitizenoftheUnitedStatescanbeacitizenoftheUnited StateswithoutbeingacitizenofaState,asinthecaseoflivingoverseas(aboard). [Footnote1] IfoneisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,thenheorsheistoaverthatheisacitizen oftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateoftheUnion: ThecourtsoftheUnitedStateshavenotjurisdictionincasesbetweencitizens oftheUnitedStates,unlesstherecordexpresslystatesthemtobecitizensof differentstates.Woodv.Wagon:6U.S.(2Cranch)1(1804).{Beforethe FourteenthAmendment}
    http://books.google.com/books?id=qzkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false

    UnlesstheavermentofcitizenshipshowsonetobeacitizenoftheUnitedStates,it willbepresumedthatoneisnotacitizenoftheUnitedStates: Thepetitionavers,thattheplaintiff,RichardRaynalKeene,isacitizenofthe stateofMaryland;andthatJamesBrown,thedefendant,isacitizenorresidentof 1

    thestateofLouisiana,holdinghisfixedandpermanentdomicilintheparishofSt. Charles.Thepetition,then,doesnotaverpositively,thatthedefendantisacitizen ofthestateofLouisiana,butinthealternative,thatheisacitizenoraresident. Consistentlywiththisaverment,hemaybeeither. ...AcitizenoftheUnitedStatesmaybecomeacitizenofthatstateinwhich hehasafixedandpermanentdomicil[Footnote2];butthepetitionDOESNOT AVERthattheplaintiffisacitizenoftheUnitedStates.... Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequire,thattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,andthatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments. TheanswerofJamesBrownasserts,thatbothplaintiffanddefendantare citizensoftheStateofLouisiana. Withoutindicatinganyopiniononthequestion,whetheranyadmissioninthe pleacancureaninsufficientallegationofjurisdictioninthedeclaration,weareallof opinionthatthisanswerdoesnotcurethedefectofthepetition.Iftheavermentof theanswermaybelookedinto,thewholeavermentmustbetakentogether.Itis thatbothplaintiffanddefendantarecitizensofLouisiana.Brownv.Keene:33U.S. (Peters8)112,at115thru116(1834).{BeforetheFourteenthAmendment}
    http://books.google.com/books?id=DUUFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA115#v=onepage&q&f=false

    TheFourteenthAmendmentdidnotmodifytherequirementofoneaverringthat heorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaState: Intheoralargumentbeforethiscourt,theinquiryarose,whethersincethe adoptionoftheFourteenthAmendmenttotheFederalConstitutionthemere allegationofresidenceinIllinoisdidnotmakesuchaprimafaciecaseofcitizenship inthatStateas,intheabsenceofproof,shouldbedeemedsufficienttosustainthe jurisdictionoftheCircuitCourt.Thatamendmentdeclaresthatallpersonsbornor naturalizedintheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizens oftheUnitedStates,andoftheStatewheretheyreside.Itwassuggestedthata residentofoneoftheStatesisprimafacieeitheracitizenoftheUnitedStatesoran alien,ifacitizenoftheUnitedStates,andalsoaresidentofoneoftheStates,heis, bythetermsoftheFourteenthAmendment,alsoacitizenoftheStatewhereinhe resides,andifanalien,hewasentitledinthatcapacitytosueintheFederalcourt, withoutregardtoresidenceinanyparticularState.Itisnottobedeniedthatthere issomeforceinthesesuggestions,buttheydonotconvinceusthatitiseither necessaryorwisetomodifytherulesheretoforeestablishedbyalonglineof decisionsuponthesubjectofthejurisdictionoftheFederalcourts.Thosewhothink 2

    thattheFourteenthAmendmentrequiressomemodificationofthoserules,claim, notthattheplaintiff'sresidenceinaparticularStatenecessarilyorconclusively proveshimtobeacitizenofthatState,withinthemeaningoftheConstitution,but onlythatageneralallegationofresidence,withoutindicatingthecharacterofsuch residence,whethertemporaryorpermanent,madeaprimafaciecaseofrighttosue intheFederalcourts.AsthejurisdictionoftheCircuitCourtislimitedinthe sensethatithasnoneexceptthatconferredbytheConstitutionandlawsofthe UnitedStates,thepresumptionnow,aswellasbeforetheadoptionofthe FourteenthAmendment,is,thatacauseiswithoutitsjurisdictionunlessthe contraryaffirmativelyappears.Incaseswherejurisdictiondependsuponthe citizenshipoftheparties,suchcitizenship,orthefactswhichinlegal intendmentconstituteit,shouldbedistinctlyandpositivelyaverredinthe pleadings,ortheyshouldappearaffirmatively,andwithequaldistinctness,in otherpartsoftherecord.Andsowherejurisdictiondependsuponthealienageof oneoftheparties.InBrownv.Keene(8Pet.115),Mr.ChiefJusticeMarshallsaid: Thedecisionsofthiscourtrequirethattheavermentofjurisdictionshallbe positive,thatthedeclarationshallstateexpresslythefactonwhichjurisdiction depends.Itisnotsufficientthatjurisdictionmaybeinferredargumentativelyfrom itsaverments.Heretheonlyfactaverred,orappearingfromtherecord,isthat CeasewasaresidentofIllinois;andweare,ineffect,asked,insupportofthe jurisdictionofthecourtbelow,toinferargumentatively,fromthemereallegationof residence,that,ifnotanalien,hehadafixedpermanentdomicileinthatState,and wasanativeornaturalizedcitizenoftheUnitedStates,andsubjecttothe jurisdictionthereof.Bysuchargumentativeinferences,itiscontendedthatwe shouldascertainthefact,vitaltothejurisdictionofthecourt,ofhiscitizenshipin someStateotherthanthatinwhichthesuitwasbrought.Weperceivenothingin eitherthelanguageorpolicyoftheFourteenthAmendmentwhichrequiresor justifiesusinholdingthatthebareavermentoftheresidenceofthepartiesis sufficient,primafacie,toshowjurisdiction.Thejudgmentmust,therefore,be reversed,uponthegroundthatitdoesnotaffirmativelyappearfromtherecordthat thedefendantinerrorwasentitledtosueintheCircuitCourt.Robertsonv.Cease: 97U.S.646,at648thru650(1878).{AftertheFourteenthAmendment}[Footnote 3]
    http://books.google.com/books?id=utkFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA648#v=onepage&q&f=false

    OnewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStates,undertheFourteenthAmendment,isto stillaverthatheorsheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesANDacitizenofaStateofthe Union: ThebillfiledintheCircuitCourtbytheplaintiff,McQuesten,allegedhertobe acitizenoftheUnitedStatesandoftheStateofMassachusetts,andresidingat 3

    TurnerFallsinsaidState,whilethedefendantsSteiglederandwifewerealleged tobecitizensoftheStateofWashington,andresidingatthecityofSeattleinsaid State.StatementoftheCase,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment} TheavermentinthebillthatthepartieswerecitizensofdifferentStates wassufficienttomakeaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionsofarasitdependedon citizenship.Opinion,Steiglederv.McQuesten:198U.S.141,at142(1905).{After theFourteenthAmendment}


    http://books.google.com/books?id=ceIGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Otherwise,onewhoisacitizenoftheUnitedStateswillnotbeabletopursuean actionindiversityofcitizenshipatthefederallevel. ________________________ Footnotes: 1.NotonlymayamanbeacitizenoftheUnitedStateswithoutbeingacitizenofa State,butanimportantelementisnecessarytoconverttheformerintothelatter. HemustresidewithintheStatetomakehimacitizenofit.SlaughterhouseCases: 83U.S.(16Wall.)36,at74(1873).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=DkgFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ThelanguageoftheFourteenthAmendmentdeclaringtwokindsofcitizenship isdiscriminating.Itis:AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStates,and subjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandoftheState whereintheyreside.Whileitthusestablishesnationalcitizenshipfromthemere circumstanceofbirthwithintheterritoryandjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,birth withinastatedoesnotestablishcitizenshipthereof.Statecitizenshipisephemeral. Itresultsonlyfromresidenceandisgainedorlosttherewith.Edwardsv.Peopleof theStateofCalifornia:314U.S.160,183(concurringopinionofJackson)(1941).


    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6778891532287614638

    Thefirstpointofinquiryiswithrespecttothestatusofappellant.The stipulationoffactsstatesthatappellantisbytradeandoccupationadeepseadiver engagedinspongefishery,hisresidenceaddressbeingatTarponSprings,Pinellas 4

    County,Florida,andthathehasbeenengagedinthisbusinessforthepastseveral years.Appellanthasnotassertedorattemptedtoshowthatheisnotacitizen oftheUnitedStates,orthatheisacitizenofanyStateotherthanFlorida,orthat heisanationalofanyforeigncountry.Itisalsosignificantthatinhisbriefin thisCourt,replyingtotheState'sargumentthatasacitizenofFloridaheisnot inapositiontoquestiontheboundariesoftheStateasdefinedbyits constitution,appellanthasnotchallengedthestatementastohiscitizenship, whilehedoescontestthelegalconsequenceswhichtheStateinsistsflowfrom thatfact. Itfurtherappearsthatuponappellant'sarrestforviolationofthestatute,he suedoutawritofhabeascorpusintheDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStatesandwas released,butthisdecisionwasreversedbytheCircuitCourtofAppeals. Cunninghamv.Skiriotes,101F.2d635.Thatcourtthoughtthatthequestionofthe statute'svalidityshouldbedeterminedinorderlyprocedurebythestatecourt subjecttoappropriatereviewbythisCourt,butthecourtexpresseddoubtastothe rightoftheappellanttoraisethequestion,saying:Skiriotesstatesheisacitizenof theUnitedStatesresidentinFlorida,andthereforeisacitizenofFlorida.His boat,fromwhichhisdivingoperationswereconducted,wemayassumewasa Floridavessel,carryingFloridalawwithher,butofcourseasmodifiedbysuperior federallaw.Id.,pp.636,637. Inthelightofappellant'sstatementstothefederalcourt,judiciallyrecited, anduponthepresentrecordshowinghislongresidenceinFloridaandthe absenceofaclaimofanyotherdomicileorofanyforeignallegiance,weare justifiedinassumingthatheisacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandofFlorida. Certainlyappellanthasnotshownhimselfentitledtoanygreaterrightsthan thosewhichacitizenofFloridapossesses.Skiriotesv.StateofFlorida:313U.S. 69,at71thru72(1941).
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9757650854292938204

    2.Seemywork,YesacitizenoftheUnitedStatescannotbedomiciledinaState, whereIshowthatundertheFourteenthAmendment,resides,doesnotmean permanentresidence(domicile)butrather,bonafideresidence,asprovidedin theSlaughterhouseCases. 3.ThiscanbeseenalsointhecaseofSunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv. Edwards(194U.S.377,1904):{AftertheFourteenthAmendment} WecometothecontentionthatthecitizenshipofEdwardswasnotaverredin thecomplaintorshownbytherecord,andhencejurisdictiondidnotappear. 5

    Inansweringthequestion,whethertheCircuitCourthadjurisdictionofthe controversy,wemustputourselvesintheplaceoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,and decidethequestionwithreferencetothetranscriptofrecordinthatcourt. HadthetranscriptshownnothingmoreastothestatusofEdwardsthanthe avermentofthecomplaintthathewasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,assuch anavermentwouldnotnecessarilyhaveimportedthatEdwardswasacitizenof Delaware,anegativeanswerwouldhavebeenimpelledbypriordecisions.Mexican CentralRy.Co.v.Duthie,189U.S.76;Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,155U.S.393; Dennyv.Pironi,141U.S.121;Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.646.Thewholerecord, however,maybelookedto,forthepurposeofcuringadefectiveavermentof citizenship,wherejurisdictioninaFederalcourtisassertedtodependupon diversityofcitizenship,andiftherequisitecitizenship,isanywhereexpressly averredintherecord,orfactsarethereinstatedwhichinlegalintendment constitutesuchallegation,thatissufficient.Hornev.GeorgeH.HammondCo.,supra andcasescited. Asthisisanactionatlaw,weareboundtoassumethatthetestimonyofthe plaintiffcontainedinthecertificateoftheCircuitCourtofAppeals,andrecitedto havebeengivenonthetrial,waspreservedinabillofexceptions,whichformed partofthetranscriptofrecordfiledintheCircuitCourtofAppeals.Beingapartof therecord,andpropertoberesortedtoinsettlingaquestionofthecharacterof thatnowunderconsideration,Robertsonv.Cease,97U.S.648,wecometoascertain whatisestablishedbytheuncontradictedevidencereferredto. Inthefirstplace,itshowsthatEdwards,priortohisemploymentontheNew YorkSunandtheNewHavenPalladium,waslegallydomiciledintheStateof Delaware.Next,itdemonstratesthathehadnointentiontoabandonsuchdomicil, forhetestifiedunderoathasfollows:OneofthereasonsIlefttheNewHaven Palladiumwas,itwastoofarawayfromhome.IlivedinDelaware,andIhadtogo backandforth.MyfamilyareoverinDelaware.Now,itiselementarythat,toeffect achangeofoneslegaldomicil,twothingsareindispensable:First,residenceina newdomicil,and,second,theintentiontoremainthere.Thechangecannotbe made,exceptfactoetanimo.Botharealikenecessary.Eitherwithouttheotheris insufficient.Mereabsencefromafixedhome,howeverlongcontinued,cannotwork thechange.Mitchellv.UnitedStates,21Wall.350. AsDelawaremust,then,beheldtohavebeenthelegaldomicilofEdwardsatthe timehecommencedthisaction,haditappeared[Footnote4]thathewasa citizenoftheUnitedStates,itwouldhaveresulted,byoperationofthe FourteenthAmendment,thatEdwardswasalsoacitizenoftheStateof Delaware.Andersonv.Watt,138U.S.694.Bethisasitmay,however,Delaware beingthelegaldomicilofEdwards,itwasimpossibleforhimtohavebeenacitizen ofanotherState,District,orTerritory,andhemustthenhavebeeneitheracitizenof DelawareoracitizenorsubjectofaforeignState.Ineitherofthesecontingencies, 6

    theCircuitCourtwouldhavehadjurisdictionoverthecontroversy.But,inthelight ofthetestimony,wearesatisfiedthattheavermentinthecomplaint,thatEdwards wasaresidentoftheStateofDelaware,wasintendedtomean,and,reasonably construed,mustbeinterpretedasaverring,thattheplaintiffwasacitizenofthe StateofDelaware.Jonesv.Andrews,10Wall.327,331;ExpressCompanyv.Kountze, 8Wall.342.SunPrinting&PublishingAssociationv.Edwards:194U.S.377,at381 thru383(1904).


    http://books.google.com/books?id=tekGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381#v=onepage&q&f=false

    4.Thatis,fromtheavermentofcitizenshiporotherpartsoftherecord.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și