Time: Mon May 26 10:40:57 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA29156;
	Mon, 26 May 1997 08:48:57 -0700 (MST)
	by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA24474;
	Mon, 26 May 1997 08:48:01 -0700 (MST)
Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 10:39:53 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: 18 U.S.C. 451 [sic] -- mystery solved!

May 26, 1997

From:     Dan Meador

To:       Paul Andrew Mitchell

Dear Paul,

     Am in receipt of your "client" FAX of this date.
Your wish is my command!

     The former 18 USC 451(3), 1940 ed., is now 
18 USC 7(3).  Consult historical and amendment notes.

     Keep up the good work & God bless,


/s/ Dan Meador


Paul's hand-written answer follows:

"Right _ON_ Dan & Gail!"

/s/ Paul Mitchell



Dear Clients,

The following is page 199 from 
"Jurisdiction over Federal Areas
within the States," Volume II,
June 1957.  Note carefully the
reference to:

"U.S.C., title 18, sec. 451, par. 3d" [sic],

which I cannot find anywhere.

Does anybody have any ideas?

This could be earth-shaking too, if we
can only dig up the Statute at Large
upon which it was based.

Lynne Meredith cited this statement,
but now I am wondering if there was
a typo in the original Eisenhower
committee report, maybe?

I also remember this issue arising
when I was working in Billings, and I did
generate a FOIA request for this
statute, but I had to leave that job,
and was never able to follow-up.


/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com

page 199 now follows:

                                 199

     One of the Navy officers testifying at the Senate hearing raised
a question as to the effect on the Federal criminal jurisdiction over
federal areas of a grant to the States of concurrent jurisdiction for
tax matters.  The Attorney General of the United States raised the
same question in commenting on the bill by letter to the Chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee:

     From the standpoint of the enforcement of the criminal law, the
     legislation may result in an embarrassment which is probably
     unintended.  Criminal jurisdiction of the Federal courts is
     restricted to Federal reservations over which the Federal
     Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts,
     magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, or other needful buildings
     (U.S.C., title 18, sec. 451, par. 3d).  A question would arise
     as to whether, by permitting the levy of sales and personal-
     property taxes on Federal reservations, the Federal Government
     has ceded back to the States its exclusive jurisdiction over
     Federal reservations and has retained only concurrent
     jurisdiction over such areas.  The result may be the loss of
     federal criminal jurisdiction over numerous reservations, which
     would be deplorable.



      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail