Federal-Jurisdiction
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.
Movement claim (supported, with caveat): Kilbourn v. Thompson establishes that the English Court of Exchequer used a fiction (plaintiff as Crown debtor) to expand jurisdiction from crown-debt cases to general jurisdiction — and the Supreme Court warned that 'such an enlargement of jurisdiction would not now be tolerated in England, and it is hoped not in this country of written constitutions and laws.' The historical observation is correct and Supreme-Court-verified; the remedial inference (that individuals can decline modern federal jurisdiction as Exchequer fiction) doesn't follow.
An unusual verification result. Byron Beers's Treatise #5 cites Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 193 (1880), for the Court's discussion of how the English Court of Exchequer used a legal fiction (declaring the plaintiff a debtor of the Crown) to expand its jurisdiction from crown-debt cases to general common-law jurisdiction, with the Court warning that such fictional jurisdictional expansion 'would not now be tolerated in England, and it is hoped not in this country of written constitutions and laws.' The quote is real, the Court's reasoning is real, and the Court's structural concern about fiction-based jurisdictional expansion is genuine. Kilbourn is a Congressional contempt case: Hallet Kilbourn refused to testify before a House investigating committee inquiring into the Jay Cooke & Co. bankruptcy; he was imprisoned 45 days; the Court held Congress lacked authority to punish citizens for contempt in matters outside its legislative jurisdiction. The Exchequer-fiction passage is real and load-bearing in the opinion. The Court invoked the Exchequer analogy precisely to condemn the kind of jurisdictional overreach masked as creditor-collection fiction. Beers's historical observation is therefore well-supported — one of the relatively rare instances in the corpus where the Supreme Court explicitly warned against the pattern the framework identifies. The remedial inference Beers builds on it (that modern federal jurisdiction operates through Exchequer-style fictions, and that individuals can therefore decline federal jurisdiction) does not follow. The constitutional and statutory architecture of modern federal jurisdiction does not actually operate through fictions in Maine's sense. Federal jurisdiction expanded dramatically in the 20th century — much of it through statutory grants under the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause, some through interpretive expansion grounded in constitutional text. The expansion is at the legislative stage of Maine's three-instrument framework, not the fiction stage. The historical pattern Beers identifies is real; the operative-law remedy doesn't follow from it.