territorial and complete jurisdiction.
The concept of territorial vs. complete (personal) jurisdiction has been around for a long time, and continues to be influential… the law upon which the suit was based could not reach the activities of the PLO because the PLO could not be brought under the jurisdiction of the United States, even though Congress intended to do so with the statute at issue (
Fuld v. PLO
The concept of “complete jurisdiction” isn’t a legally cognizable jurisdiction whereas Personal Jurisdiction is legally cognizable in U.S. jurisprudence. “Complete jurisdiction” is apparently a phrase conjured and used outside of court decisions, law schools, lawyers and judges.
While in law school I never encountered the phrase “complete jurisdiction,” and that includes the two semester class of Federal Jurisdiction as a 3L. In my now 19 years of practicing law, I’ve yet to encounter any law professor, lawyer, judge, etc., using “complete jurisdiction.” I’m familiar with and learned “complete diversity” in relation to “diversity jurisdiction” for federal jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction (which has 3 sub-categories), subject matter jurisdiction, but not “complete jurisdiction.”
I’ve not encountered a lawyer, judge, Justice, law professor, use “complete jurisdiction” as a reference to or to mean “personal jurisdiction.”
Indeed, the decision of Fuld v PLO by the 2nd Circuit, inundated with the phrases of personal jurisdiction, general and specific jurisdiction, but devoid of your phrase “complete jurisdiction.” See opinion here
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-76/22-76-2023-09-08.html
This is is spite of the fact that the PLO has offices in the US (which was the initial basis of the assertion that the US had jurisdiction over them).
Ah, but lacking the intimate legal knowledge of the personal jurisdiction test(s) for general and specific jurisdiction as well, you omitted the rationale supporting the conclusion.
General personal jurisdiction refers to, and from a legal perspective asks, inter alia, whether the Defendant has contact or contacts with the jurisdiction, the frequency of those contacts, the nature of their contacts, called “minimum contacts” test. The 2nd. Circuit opined “we concluded that the district court lacked general personal jurisdiction over the defendants “pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent decision” in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014),because neither defendant’s
contacts with the forum were “so constant and pervasive as to render [it] essentially at home” in the United States. Waldman I, (quoting Daimler, 571 U.S. at 122)…
We rejected the notion that the defendants could be considered “essentially at home” in this country based on their activities in Washington, D.C., which were “limited to maintaining an office [there], promoting the Palestinian cause in speeches and media appearances, and retaining a lobbying firm.” Id. at 333.Rather, both the PLO and the PA “are ‘at home’ in Palestine, where these entities are headquartered and from where they are directed.”
This didn’t resolve the legal dispute before the 2nd Circuit, as specific personal jurisdiction, which involves the Defendant(s), dispute, forum, with a connection to all three. This too has a contacts inquiry, makes sense since personal jurisdiction tests inquires regarding Defendant(s) contacts. The 2nd Circuit wrote “likewise held that the district court could not properly exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the PLO and the PA, in view of the absence of any “substantial connection” between “the defendants’ suit-related conduct — their role in the six terror attacks at issue — [and] . . . the forum.” We explained that the
terrorist attacks themselves took place outside the United States, that “the defendants
10 activities in violation of the ATA occurred outside the United States,” and that
none of these acts were “specifically targeted” or “expressly aimed” at the United States.”
I’m unsure whether you are invoking this decision to argue against the position of, those illegally in the country and have children born within the U.S. then those children are U.S. citizens under the relevant provision of the 14th amendment. If you are, those illegally within the U.S. have sufficient contacts with the U.S. unlike those in the Fuld decision.
Interestingly, my prior post is incoherent to you but your non-legal phrase of “complete jurisdiction” of coherent, to you. My prose isn’t the problem.
edatv.news
www.msnbc.com
.
when you can define complete and partial jurisdictions. Sorry, your interim drive-bys pretty much showed where you're coming from here. Why should I expect honesty or legitimate info now?