CITES BY TOPIC:  Acts of Congress

18 U.S.C. §4001

TITLE 18 > PART III > CHAPTER 301 > Sec. 4001.

Sec. 4001. - Limitation on detention; control of prisons

(a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, paragraph 2, in the middle:

"On the other hand since all Federal crimes are statutory [ see United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.Ed. 259 (1812)] and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal courts are based on acts of Congress, . . ."

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 54(c), wherein is defined "Act of Congress." Rule 54(c) states the following.  The language below was removed from this rule and removed by committee around Dec. 2002:

"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."

[EDITORIAL: For a listing of the above locations covered by "Acts of Congress", refer to Title 48 U.S.C. The fact that the Judicial Conference, in concert with the Chief Justice, found it necessary, back in the Spring of 2001, through meetings that occurred in Summer and Fall of 2001, to obscure the truth, by hiding the definition of "Act of Congress", by alleging combining Rule 54 (c) with Rule 1, does not negate the fact that the statutory definition of "Act of Congress", although hidden by its removal from the federal Criminal rules, is still in effect in year 2023.

Legal scholars know the Truth. It is difficult to convince the uninitiated, especially the generation of attorneys who been admitted to the BAR since 2002, of the serious consequences of the Judicial Branch's overt act of subterfuge in December 2001, taken, no doubt, at the behest of a corrupt Congress, a corrupted BAR, and VERY corrupted attorneys and staff employed by the government. The fact is that it is the U.S. Supreme Court that drafts and revises the Rule of Criminal Procedure so Congress had to act via the Supreme Court.

Now, according to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges:

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary.

[Code of Conduct for United States Judges | United States Courts (](]

The Supreme Court violated Canon 1 when they conspired with Congress to intentionally hide the definition of Act of Congress, after becoming aware of insights garnered above.

The U.S. Supreme Court from time to time, gives up gems of constitutional wisdom that expose their genuine understanding of the notion of delegated powers and the limits of federal jurisdiction. For example, in Sale v. Haitian Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S.155, 188 (1993), the Court admitted that:

"Acts of Congress normally do not have extraterritorial application unless such intent is clearly manifested..."

Similarly, in Foley Bros., Inc., v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949), it was held that:

" . . . Legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. . ."

Foley is cited in United States v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222 (1949). See also, 34 Op. Att'y Gen. 257, 259 - 260 (1924) ]

Lyeth v. Hoey , 305 US 188, 59 S. Ct 155 (1938):

"In dealing with the meaning and application of an act of Congress enacted in the exercise of its plenary power under the Constitution to tax income and to grant exemptions from that tax, it is the will of Congress which controls, and the expression of its will, in the absence of language evidencing a different purpose, should be interpreted 'so as to give a uniform application to a nation-wide scheme of taxation'. Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103, 110 , 53 S.Ct. 74, 77. Congress establishes its own criteria and the state law may control only when the federal taxing act by express language or necessary implication makes its operation dependent upon state law. Burnet v. Harmel, supra. See Burk-Waggoner Oil Association v. Hopkins, 269 U.S. 110, 111 , 114 S., 46 S.Ct. 48, 49; Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U.S. 333 , 49 S.Ct. 337; Morrissey v. Commissioner, 296 U.S. 344, 356 , 56 S.Ct. 289, 294. Compare Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 59 , 51 S.Ct. 49, 50; Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U.S. 101, 109 , 110 S., 51 S.Ct. 58; Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U.S. 5, 9 , 10 S., 57 S.Ct. 330, 331."

[Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 US 188, 59 S. Ct 155 (1938)]