Las Vegas personal injury lawyer

FEDERAL JURISDICTION & RELATED ISSUES

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, provided Congress exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction, municipal plenary (absolute) powers, to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States [Washington, D.C], and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent off the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Pursuant to Article VI, Clause 2, Congress's municipal legislative police powers do not apply within the boundaries of the states of the Union, but they Do apply to the citizens of the District of Columbia and any federal territory that is not within the jurisdiction of one of the several states of the union of several states, which is confirmed under Title 18 Criminal Code at Sections 5 and 7, per definition of territorial jurisdiction of the United States as follows:

18 U.S.C. Sec. 5. - United States defined

The term "United States", as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone

18 U.S.C. Sec. 7. - Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined

(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The above is confirmed in the Department of Justice's, United States Attorney's Manual, Title 9 Criminal Resource Manual, Section 662 through 666, so they do in fact have knowledge of these facts. At the end of Section 664 the following appears:

COMMENT: In summary, the United States may exercise plenary criminal jurisdiction over lands within state borders:

A. Where it reserved such jurisdiction upon entry of the state into the union;

B. Where, prior to February 1, 1940, it acquired property for a purpose enumerated in the Constitution with the consent of the state;

C. Where it acquired property whether by purchase, gift or eminent domain, and thereafter,
but prior to February 1, 1940, received a cession of jurisdiction from the state; and

D. Where it acquired the property, and/or received the state's consent or cession of jurisdiction after February 1, 1940, and has filed the requisite acceptance.

It is also confirmed under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, where Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Applicability of those rules and the areas it shall apply in a criminal proceeding is defined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 54 (c) by the statement "as used in these rules an "Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession", and is further confirmed at Code of Federal Regulations (Internal Revenue Service) 26 CFR Section 31.3121 (e)-1, (a) and (b) as follows:

Sec. 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.

(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and (when used with respect to services performed after 1960) Guam and American Samoa.

(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term "United States", when used in a geographical sense, means the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with respect to services performed after 1960, the term "United States" also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term is used in a geographical sense. The term "citizen of the United States" includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1, 1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.

Cases, in Law and Equity, arising and this Constitution other then municipal laws of Congress shall arise under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, (issues i.e. Taxes) arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (Title 26 Internal Revenue Code), and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to Controversies (whether you owe a tax or not) to which the United States shall be a Party.

Under the Supremacy Clause Article VI, Clause 2, This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution of North Carolina Article I, Section 19 mandates that No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

In order for the Judicial Power to extend to controversies to which the United States shall be party, the law must arise under the Constitution, Laws of the United States, and Treaties made under their authority, and within their jurisdiction. It is well established principle of law that all "federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears affecting Citizens in the several 50 states of the Union. Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894). This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States where the Court declared:

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government."

In United States v. Benson, 495 F.2d 475 (5'^hCir. 1974), in finding federal jurisdiction for a robbery committed at Fort Rucker, the court held:

"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction herefor."

Finally, in Curry v. State, 111 Tex. Cr. 264, 12 S.W.2d 796 (1928), it was held that, in the absence of proof that the state had ceded jurisdiction of a place to the United States, the state courts had jurisdiction over an offense.

Therefore, in federal criminal prosecutions involving jurisdictional type crimes, the government must prove the existence of federal jurisdiction by showing U.S. ownership of the place where the crime was committed and state cession of jurisdiction. If the government contends for the power to criminally prosecute for an offense committed outside "its jurisdiction," it must prove an extra-territorial application of the statute in question as well as a constitutional foundation supporting the same. Absent this showing, no federal prosecution can be commenced for offenses committed outside "its jurisdiction."

In the case of the United States v. Erie R.R. Co., 106 U.S. 327, 333, 1 S.Ct. 223 (1882) Justice Field wrote in his dissent:

"The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of a state is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction."

The municipal jurisdiction of Congress only extends to the limits as defined in the Constitution itself (see "1:8:17" and "4:3:2").

"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction" [Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]

"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be `assumed', it must be proved to exist." [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." [Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]

"... Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown." [Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]

"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings"

[Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533]

"If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed."

[Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149,29 S. Ct. 42]

Title 18, Section 7, Federal Crimes & Criminal punishment specifies that the Òterritorial jurisdictionÓ of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states, and Title 40, Section 255 specifies the legal conditions that must be fulfilled for the United States federal government to have exclusive or shared jurisdiction within the area of lands belonging to the States of the Union.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act Title 5 Section 552 describes in particular detail various items which must be published by federal agencies in the Federal Register:

(E) each amendment, revision or repeal of the foregoing. Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register."

A "rule" for publication purposes is certainly an agency requirement imposed on the public which implements or prescribes law. Pursuant to Section 552(a)(1)(D), "substantive rules of general applicability" [applicable to the general public in the 50 States] must be published in the Federal Register; an omission in this respect means that the unpublished rule is unenforceable against one without notice:

(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency;

One must also consider Code of Federal Regulations (Internal Revenue Service) 26 CFR Section 601.702 (a)(1) Publication in the Federal Register. Requirement, which reads in part "the Internal Revenue Service" is required under 5 U.S.C. 552 (a)(1) to separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public the following information:

(iv) "Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law..."

A closer look at the Implementing Regulation found at Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR 601.702(2)(ii), one finds the Effect of Failure to Publish:

"Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms of any matter referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph which is required to be published in the Federal Register, such person is not required in any manner to resort to, or be adversely affected by, such matter if it is not so published or is not incorporated by reference therein pursuant to subdivision (i) of the subparagraph. Thus, for example, any such matter which imposes an obligation and which is not so published or incorporated by reference will not adversely change or affect a person's lights."

The U.S. Government Printing Office has published a booklet entitled "How Our Laws Are Made" a product of the 105`^h Congress, 1^stSession Document 105-14 published in 1998. On review of the part titled "Enacted Law" one finds the following to wit:

"One off the important steps in the enactment of a valid law [versus prima facie invalid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are to be bound by it. There would be no justice if the state were to hold its people responsible for conduct

before it made known to them the unlawfulness of such behavior. In practice, our laws are published [in the Federal Register] immediately upon their enactment so that the public will be aware of them." [Clarification added]

Twenty-two of the 50 titles of the U.S. Code have been revised and enacted into positive law, and two have been eliminated by consolidation with other titles. Titles that have been enacted into positive law are legal evidence of the law, and the courts receive them as proof of those laws. A `positive law' as defined in Black's is a "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority_ for use by the government.

We now turn to Public Law 591, 83d Congress, approved August 16, 1954, referred to in Code of Federal Regulations (Internal Revenue Service) 26 CFR 1.0-1 as follows:

(a) Enactment of law. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which became law upon enactment of Public Law 591, 83d Congress, approved August 16, 1954, provides in part as follows:

(a)(1) The provisions of this Act set forth under the heading "Internal Revenue Title" may be cited as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954"

(d) Enactment of Internal Revenue Title into law. The Internal Revenue Title referred to in subsection (a)(1) is as follows: In general, the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 are applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after August 16, 1954.

(b) Scope of regulations. The regulations in this part deal with (1) the income taxes imposed under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, and (2) certain administrative provisions contained in subtitle F of such Code relating to such taxes.

For applicability of revenue laws we turn to Title 26 Internal Revenue Code, Section 7851 where we fmd the following:

(a) Subtitle A (1)(A) Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 6 of this title shall apply only with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1953, and ending after the date of enactment of this title,

(6) Subtitle F (A) General rule - The provisions of subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by this title. [Other than Subtitle A income taxes]

It appears the construct of the provisions in 26 CFR and 26 U.S.C. reads: The Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 on August 16^th, 1954, and then about 14.7 nanoseconds later [or sometime during the day] terminated the enactment on the very same day. The question for the courts now begs to be asked. How can an "invalid law be a positive law" if a law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for use by the government is not listed in the Federal Register as legal evidence having force and effect.

The "assumptions" of facts seem to gain strength over people when the `assumption' has been ongoing for a long period of time.

How can this be, one might ask? The answer lies in letter drafted by former President William H. Taft requesting that the Congress create a new piece of legislation and proposed an amendment to the Constitution. The document has been published in the Congressional Record-Senate June 16, 1909 Pages 3344-3345, and is the legislative intent and backbone of the creation of the 16^th Amendment. It states, in part:

"... it is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of almost exactly the same character as, that which in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (157 U. S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax [Unconstitutional], and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population." [Emphasis added] [Clarification added]

"The decision of the Supreme Court in the income tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that Government had." [Emphasis added]

"I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population." [Emphasis added]

"This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional." [Emphasis added]

"Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax... " [Emphasis added]

"I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all [Federal] corporations and [Federal] joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock." [Emphasis added] [Clarification added]

"The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company vs. McClain (192 U. S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property... "

When a Judicial Court needs to understand any law, one of the first steps taken is to review what the legislature was seeking to achieve and the reasons behind the law being created. President Taft directed Congress to place an income tax upon the `employees, officers, and elected officials of the `United States' [federal government] under federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 54 (c) "Act of Congress" is defined as follows:

"Act of Congress" includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession. [Emphasis added]

The definition of an "Act of Congress" is in line with President Taft's request above, where any act is applicable only to the employees, officers and the elected official of the United States federal government and in force in the District of Columbia where the seat of the National government lies, in

Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession all under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government under the plenary (or absolute) power of Congress.

A committee was assembled by Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr.. Their detailed study was reported in a publication entitled ÒJurisdiction over Federal Areas within the States,Ó April, 1956 (Volume I) and June, 1957 (Volume II). The committee's report demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the sovereign States and their laws are outside the legislative and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, federal government. They are totally outside the federal zone. A plethora of evidence is found in the myriad of cited court cases (700+) which prove that the United States cannot exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction outside territories or places purchased from, or ceded by, the 50 States of the Union. Attorney General Brownell described the committee's report as an "exhaustive and analytical exposition of the law in this hitherto little explored field". In his letter of transmittal to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Brownell summarized the two volumes as follows:

Together, the two parts of this Committee's report and the full implementation of its recommendations will provide a basis for reversing in many areas the

swing of "the pendulum of power * * * from our states to the central government" to which you referred in your address to the Conference of State Governors on June 25, 1957.

THE FINAL KEY ÉÉÉÉÉÉ.. YOU DECIDE .

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7441. - Status

There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.

COMMENT AND EXPLANATION:

Tax Court is not an Article III Judicial Court, it is an Article I Legislative Court without judicial power. Tax Court will not rule on constitutional issues regarding taxation, because they have no judicial authority (power). Tax Court can only decide how much taxes you owe, not whether you owe it or not. The issue of taxation is a constitutional issue: "Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, (Issues) arising under this Constitution (such as taxation), the Laws of the United States (Title 26 Internal Revenue Code), and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; É. to Controversies (such as whether you owe a tax or not) to which the United States shall be a Party.

26 U.S.C. Sec. 7442. - Jurisdiction

The Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, by title II and title III of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 10-87), or by laws enacted subsequent to February 26, 1926

COMMENT AND EXPLANATION:

The Tax Court does not have jurisdiction conferred on them by the "Abolished" Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (MISSING ABOVE) to hear cases regarding how much tax you owe. There are no issues to resolve regarding how much taxes are owed, because the law does not exist.

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 26, Volume 19]

[Revised as of April 1, 2001]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access [CITE: 26CFR601.102]

CHAPTER I--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY-

PART 601--STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL RULES--Table of Contents

Subpart A--General Procedural Rules

Sec. 601.102 Classification of taxes collected by the Internal Revenue Service.

(a) Principal divisions. Internal revenue taxes fall generally into the following principal divisions: (1) Taxes collected by assessment.

(2) Taxes collected by means of revenue stamps.

(b) Assessed taxes. Taxes collected principally by assessment fall into the following two main classes: (1) Taxes within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court. These include:

(i) Income and profits taxes imposed by Chapters 1 and 2 of the 1939 Code and taxes imposed by subtitle A of the 1954 Code, relating to income taxes.

(ii) Estate taxes imposed by Chapter 3 of the 1939 Code and Chapter 11 of the 1954 Code. (iii) Gift tax imposed by Chapter 4 of the 1939 Code and Chapter 12 of the 1954 Code. (iv) The tax on generation-skipping transfers imposed by Chapter 13 of the 1954 Code. (v) Taxes imposed by Chapters 41 through 44 of the 1954 Code.

FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES:

These mandatory taxes are imposed by the 1939 and 1954 Code, upon the employees, officers, and elected officials of the United States federal government and locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession under the federal exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress's plenary (absolute) municipal power.

(2) Taxes not within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Tax Court.

Taxes not imposed by Chapter 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the 1939 Code or Subtitle A or Chapter 11 or 12 of the 1954 Code are within this class, such as:

(i) Employment taxes.

(ii) Miscellaneous excise taxes collected by return.

FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES:

Taxes not imposed by Chapter 1 - Normal Taxes, Chapter 2 - Tax on self-employment income, Chapter 3 - withholding of tax on non-resident aliens and foreign corporations, Chapter 4 - Abolished of the 1939 Code because they never imposed in the first place since they are considered an excise tax, which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; "or Subtitle A or Chapter 11 - estate tax, Chapter 12 - gift tax of the 1954 Code. Removed with the belief that, "we better remove these, before the public catches on and find out Congress has been collecting an illegal tax all these years." The above can not be within the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, because you never owed any taxes to begin with.

(i) Employment taxes = voluntary withholding W-2 at source by employer.

(ii) Miscellaneous excise taxes collected by return = voluntarily filed 1040 return, where such excise tax has been declared unconstitutional unless it was apportioned among the states according to the population. Therefore it can not be mandatory, but strictly voluntary for it not to be unconstitutional.

(3) The difference between these two main classes is that only taxes described in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph, i.e., those within the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, may be contested before an independent tribunal prior to payment. Taxes of both classes may be contested by first making payment, filing claim for refund, and then bringing suit to recover if the claim is disallowed or no decision is rendered thereon within six months.

[32 FR 15990, Nov. 22, 1967, as amended at 35 FR 7111, May 6, 1970; 46 FR 26053, May 11, 1981; T.D. 8685, 61 FR 58008, Nov. 12, 1996]

FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES:

Anytime someone receives a deficiency notice from the Internal Revenue Service demanding a tax due, the IRS gives everyone the opportunity to go to Tax Court within 90 days, otherwise you are at their mercy. This is why no-one can go to Tax Court if they voluntarily filed, because Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to decide how much you owe, when you didn't owe it in the first place. You also cannot take it to a United States District Court until you have resolved all your remedies at the administrative level by going to Tax Court. So it would appear in the wise old words, Òyou are stuck my friend.Ó

IS THE ANSWER IS TO STOP FILING Ð YOU MUST MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND Ð This is not a legal opinion, designed to have, foster, or encourage anyone to stop filing. It is merely the law, as published. YOU MUST MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD. For further information go to the contact / home page of this site.

DEFINITIONS

Federal Register Bulletin board for the public of "Federal Statutes at Large, United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations, Public Laws, Congressional Record, Treaties, Presidential Executive Orders, Proclamations, anything that has to do with the Constitution of the United States of America and a lot more from the day the Constitution was written to the present".

U.S.C. United States Code

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

5 U.S.C. Government Organization and Employees (Administrative Procedures Act)

18 U.S.C._________ Crimes and Criminal Procedure (Federal Criminal Code)

26 U.S.C. Internal Revenue Code

Subtitle A Income Taxes - Abolished

Chapter I Normal Taxes and Surtaxes

Chapter II Tax on Self-Employment Income

Chapter IV Abolished

Chapter VI Consolidated Returns

Conclusion

It is a well established principle of law that all federal "legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears;" see Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215, 14 S.Ct. 513 (1894); American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 213 U.S. 347, 357, 29 S.Ct. 511 (1909); United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94, 97, 98, 43 S.Ct. 39 (1922); Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437, 52 S.Ct. 252 (1932); Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285, 69 S.Ct. 575 (1949); United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222, 70 S.Ct. 10 (1949); and United States v. First National City Bank, 321 F.2d 14, 23 (2nd Cir. 1963). This particular principle of law is expressed in a number of cases from the federal appellate courts; see McKeel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 722 F.2d 582, 589 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as territorial); Meredith v. United States, 330 F.2d 9, 11 (9th Cir. 1964) (holding the Federal Torts Claims Act as territorial); United States v. Cotroni, 527 F.2d 708, 711 (2nd Cir. 1975) (holding federal wiretap laws as territorial); Stowe v. Devoy, 588 F.2d 336, 341 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cleary v. United States Lines, Inc., 728 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1984) (holding federal age discrimination laws as territorial); Thomas v. Brown & Root, Inc., 745 F.2d 279, 281 (4th Cir. 1984) (holding same as Cleary, supra); United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding marine mammals protection act as territorial); Pfeiffer v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 755 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Airline Stewards & Stewardesses Assn. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1959) (holding Railway Labor Act as territorial); Zahourek v. Arthur Young and Co., 750 F.2d 827, 829 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding age discrimination laws as territorial); Commodities Futures Trading Comm. v. Nahas, 738 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding commission's subpoena power under federal law as territorial); Reyes v. Secretary of H.E. W, 476 F.2d 910, 915 (D.C.Cir. 1973) (holding administration of Social Security Act as territorial); and Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 268 F.Supp. 385, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1967) (holding securities act as territorial). This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215, where the Court declared: