Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on May 13, 1998 at 15:27:03:
In Reply to: allodial posted by Dean Worley on April 08, 1998 at 12:57:56:
Alla v. Kornfeld et al., 84 F.Supp. 823
No. 48 C 801
United States District Court
N. D. Illinois, E. D.
June 8, 1949
There is a distinction between citizen-
ship of the United States and citizenship
of a particular state, and a person may
be the former without being the latter.
To be a "citizen" of a state so as to
sue or be sued in courts of the United
States, person must have a domicile in such
state. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1332.
See Words and Phrases, Permanent
Edition, for other judicial constructions
and definitions of "Citizen".
If a person establishes a domicile in
a foreign country, he loses his state citizen-
ship but not necessarily his United States
Where plaintiff was a citizen of Brazil
and defendant was registered with Depart-
ment of State as a citizen of the United
States but had lived in Mexico continu-
ously for 13 years, Federal Court was with-
out jurisdiction of action as between par-
ties, since action was not a controversy
between citizens of different states nor be-
tween citizen of a state and citizen of a
foreign state. 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1332.
Quoting from published decision:
[5-8] There is a recognized distinction
between citizenship of the United States
and citizenship of a particular State, and
a peson may be the former without being
the latter. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall.
36, 21 L.Ed. 394. In order to constitute
a person a citizen of a State, so as to
sue or be sued in the courts of the United
States, that person must hae domicile in
such State. If a person establishes domicile
in a foreign country, he loses his State
citizenship but not necessarily his United
States citizenship. He loses the latter only
where he renounces or otherwise abandons
or loses it. Hammerstein v. Lyne, 8 Cir.,
200 F. 165. Here it would appear that
Lillard has lost his State citizenship but not
his United States citizenship. Hence, as
between him and plaintiff, the present ac-
tion cannot be said to be a controversy
between citizens of different States, nor be-
tween a citizen of a State and a citizen
of a foreign state. At first blush, this
might be deemed an inequitable situation,
but it must be remembered that, in his
present status, Lillard is similarly precluded
from maintaining an action in the federal
courts. The following cases support the
result achieved here. Although, under the
present Judicial Code, a resident of the
District of Columbia may sue and be sued
in the federal couts, the rationale of the
Land Co. case is still applicable to the cir-
cumstances of the instant cause of action.
"The defendant Smoot moves to dismiss
the bill as to him for want of jurisdiction.
This motion must prevail, because it is
well settled that a citizen of the District
of Columbia is not a citizen of a state
within the meaning of the judiciary act
and the subsequent acts conferring juris-
diction upon the circuit courts of the United
States, and the jurisdiction of this court
does not extend to a controversy between
an alien and a citizen of the United States
who is not a citizen of a state. Hepburn
v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445, [2 L.Ed. 332];
Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 280,
[18 L.Ed. 825]; New Orleans v. Winter,
1 Wheat. 91 [4 L.Ed. 44]." Land Co. of
New Mexico, Ltd., [sic] v. Elkins, 2 Cir.,
20 F. 545.
"As has been said, citizens of the Dis-
trict of Columbia were not granted the
privilege of litigating in the federal courts
on the ground of diversity of citizenship.
Possibly no better reason for this fact exists
than such citizens were not thought of
when the judiciary article of the federal
Constitution was drafted. It is even more
probable that citizens of the United States,
occupying the very unusual status that
Pannill does, were also not thought of; but
in any event a citizen of the United States,
who is not a citizen of any state, is not
within the language of the Constitution."
D.C., Pannill v. Roanoke Times Co., 252
F. 910, 914.
[end of extended quotation]
Here is the holding:
"In any event a citizen of the United States,
who is not a citizen of any state, is not
within the language of the Constitution!"
This means that the references to
"Citizen of the United States" at
1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1
all refer to Citizens of ONE OF the
several States of the Union (as we have
been saying all along).
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup