WASHINGTON D.C.
IS SPECIAL TOO

- Washington, D.C.

Not being part of any U.S. state, Washington, D.C.'s government operates as a city and state combined, although it is not a US state of its own."

< see more below  Administrative Law - D.C. Circuit Has Special History Among Appeals Courts >

Administrative Law - D.C. Circuit Has Special History Among Appeals Courts

United States District Court of Columbia - Circuit courts of appeals of the United States
The National Court: The court had state and federal jurisdiction, as well as “novel and peculiar jurisdiction” over controversies that were national in character. So much authority to review national decisions had been given to the court that they had to be considered federal judges, the plaintiffs argued, and the Supreme Court agreed. This court hears appeals that involve like national agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

The character of the court’s cases marks it as unique among its peers: two-thirds of its docket involves the federal government in some form. A third of its cases are agency appeals and a quarter are civil cases involving the federal government.​ The court’s history, as much as its location, has led to its current prominent role today. The Judiciary Act of 1801, passed by Federalists weeks before Thomas Jefferson became president and his fellow Republicans took control of Congress, set up circuit courts around the country. Jefferson and the Republicans promptly repealed the Act, but “one lonely federal circuit court and three lonely federal circuit court judges survived the Jeffersonian purge.”​

The court was not created for local purposes only, because it had the same federal jurisdiction as the other courts created by the 1801 Act, and it enjoyed all the local jurisdiction of the state courts of Maryland. Its state court jurisdiction gave the D.C. court power to issue writs of mandamus, and because his court was federal, Cranch argued, he had the power to issue those writs against federal officials. For the next 125 years it was the only court to issue such mandamuses, until 1962, when Congress gave other federal appeals courts that authority.

 

D.C. Circuit Expands Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Foreign Activities of U.S. Companies July 20, 2011 The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corporation allows non-U.S. citizens to bring suit in U.S. courts for wrongful acts or omissions that allegedly violate established rules of the law of nations and/or a treaty of the United States. The decision expands the jurisdiction of federal courts over suits against U.S. companies for events occurring abroad. The case arises under a U.S. Code provision called the Alien Tort Statute. First adopted in 1790, the statute has been seldom invoked until recent years. The Doe plaintiffs, a group of Indonesian nationals, claimed that U.S. security personnel assigned to an Exxon gas production facility in Aceh province caused extensive damage to property and injuries to persons living in villages near the plant. The plaintiffs alleged knowledge on the part of Exxon officials in the United States, but all relevant events occurred in Indonesia. The District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on jurisdictional and other grounds. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court reversed the District Court's decision. The Circuit Court found that the complaint alleged acts that, if proven, would constitute aiding and abetting the violation of human rights, liability for which has been established with sufficient clarity under the law of nations to subject Exxon to suit in the United States. The Court's analysis of the current state of international law, and its process for discerning established norms of the law of nations, leave the door open to recognition of other forms of tortious conduct that may be deemed violative of international law. 

Potential Impact
The Exxon decision conflicts with rulings from the Second and Seventh Circuits, which may enhance the prospects for further review. Unless and until the full D.C. Circuit Court or the U.S. Supreme Court overturns this decision, however, U.S. or foreign companies having sufficient contacts with the District of Columbia may be sued in D.C. federal court for acts, omissions or events occurring abroad that may be described as “aiding or abetting” violations of human rights. Not every routine tort rises to a matter of international law, but plaintiff's lawyers and advocacy groups now have greater flexibility in framing their allegations to take advantage of the Court's opinion. And any case filed in the federal courts requires compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, including document retention obligations and all the other requirements of modern federal court litigation.

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations

Actually, Roman Civil Law was fully established in the colonies before our nation began, and then became managed by private international law.

In other words, the government -- the government created for the District of Columbia via the Act of 1871 – operates solely under Private International Law, not Common Law, which was the foundation of our Constitutional Republic. "

What is Private International Law?

Private international law is the body of conventions, model laws, national laws, legal guides, and other documents and instruments that regulate private relationships across national borders. Private international law has a dualistic character, balancing international consensus with domestic recognition and implementation, as well as balancing sovereign actions with those of the private sector.

This fact has impacted all Americans in concrete ways. For instance, although Private International Law is technically only applicable within the District of Columbia, and NOT in the other states of the Union, the arms of the Corporation of the UNITED STATES are called 'departments' -- i.e., the Justice Department, the Treasury Department. And those departments affect everyone, no matter where (in what state) they live. Guess what? Each department belongs to the corporation -- to the UNITED STATES.

"Refer to any UNITED STATES CODE (USC). Note the capitalization; this is evidence of a corporation, not a Republic.

For example, In Title 28 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C), it is unequivocally stated that the UNITED STATES is a corporation.

Translation: the corporation is NOT a separate and distinct entity; it is not disconnected from the government; it IS the government -- your government. This is extremely important! I refer to it as the 'corporate EMPIRE of the UNITED STATES,' which operates under Roman Civil Law outside the original Constitution.

 

Q: Do members of Congress work for us or do they work for the Corporation, for the UNITED STATES.

A: "Technically, legally, or any other way you want to look at the matter, the corporate government of the UNITED STATES has no jurisdiction or authority in ANY State of the Union (the Republic) beyond the District of Columbia.

The history of corporate law

The history of corporate law in the United States can be directly tied to the ebb and flow of the debate between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over how centralized the government of the United States should be, how much power the member states should have over their own affairs, and how much say citizens and citizen organizations should have in public affairs.

While both Hamilton and Jefferson participated in the creation of the Federal Government, which was more centralized than that proposed in the Articles of Confederation, they had very different visions of government. Hamilton advocated for a stronger central government, which he believed necessary for an industrialized nation, while Jefferson advocated for a more decentralized, more agrarian nation (see Jeffersonian democracy). When Hamilton, as the first US Treasury Secretary, created a national bank for the new country (see First Bank of the United States), Jefferson opposed the idea. After 20 years in operation, the bank's charter was not renewed. (Later, President Andrew Jackson seeing the Second Bank of the United States as a source of corruption, succeeded in eliminating that institution by refusing to renew its charter thereby eliminating a central bank in the United States.)