Cunningham-v-Neagle
Movement claim: Federal law operates as personal/extraterritorial law following national citizens wherever they reside, not as territorial law of general application — Cunningham v. Neagle is Lamar's dissent, Foley Bros. is the presumption AGAINST extraterritoriality, Caha's operative holding upheld federal jurisdiction within a state, and 26 CFR § 1.1-1(b) taxes citizens on worldwide income regardless of residence: every authority cuts the opposite way
Byron Beers's Treatise #7 argues (claim S4) that federal law operates as personal/extraterritorial law following national citizens wherever they reside — reaching persons (citizens/subjects) rather than territory (the states) — so that a U.S. citizen classified as a 'resident' is a foreigner subject to the personal law of the national sovereign rather than the territorial law of general application. The thesis is supported by four citations, and every one of them cuts the opposite way. Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890): the 'murder not a federal offense except in D.C., territories, and exclusive federal jurisdiction' language is Justice Lamar's DISSENT (joined by Chief Justice Fuller), not Justice Miller's majority; the majority held federal-officer immunity rooted in the Constitution's territorial reach — the territorial view, the opposite of the personal-law thesis. Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949): the canonical presumption-AGAINST-extraterritoriality case — U.S. statutes are presumed to apply only within U.S. territorial jurisdiction unless Congress clearly says otherwise; Beers cites it backwards. Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211 (1894): already verdicted in the Treatise 4 cycle — the operative holding upheld federal perjury jurisdiction within a state, and the 'only in D.C.' language scopes a narrow class of general police-power matters, not federal law generally. 26 CFR § 1.1-1(b) (Beers cited § 1.1-2, the limitation-on-tax provision): the correct regulation taxes U.S. citizens on worldwide income 'wherever resident... whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States' — the opposite of a territorial-limitation reading. The personal/extraterritorial-law thesis depends on two dissents read as majorities, one case read backwards, one already-verdicted miscitation, and one mis-cited regulation whose correct text refutes the thesis. Foreclosed.
Resident / Minister: Treatise #7 and the Dissent-as-Court Pattern in Its Densest Form
Treatise #7 opens the Beers application layer — and concentrates the corpus's characteristic citation failure mode: three separate cases (Fong Yue Ting, Cunningham v. Neagle, Dred Scott/Vattel) have the cited language in a non-majority opinion. The 'inferior order of citizenship' language is Brewer's dissent describing resident aliens, not the Court describing 14th Amendment citizens. The personal/extraterritorial-law thesis is foreclosed by every operative authority it invokes (26 CFR § 1.1-1(b) taxes the citizen regardless of residence). The res+ident folk etymology is linguistically wrong. The Vattel resident-minister parallel is real but carries no remedial weight — no court recognizes 14A citizens as foreign-minister analogues. Foreclosed.