No. 19-7669

Lawrence Eliot Mattison v. Janie Deborah Willis, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-02-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: 18-usc-13 38-cfr-814 38-cfr-814-560-561 concurrent-criminal-jurisdiction concurrent-jurisdiction criminal-jurisdiction federal-criminal-jurisdiction federal-enclave federal-enclave-jurisdiction jurisdiction-transfer retrocession stalking state-criminal-prosecution state-prosecution veterans-affairs
Key Terms:
Securities Immigration Privacy
Latest Conference: 2020-06-11 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether repeal of code of Virginia 87.1-21(1976) of jurisdiction over alleged crimes and offenses committed on federal enclave property, and acceptance of that repeal by the DVA on behalf of the HVAMC, confers concurrent criminal jurisdiction on persons acting under color of State law to prosecute Petitioner for the alleged crime of Stalking and annoying calls under Virginia criminal process, when the alleged crimes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney under 18 U.S.C. §13 and 38 CFR §814.560 and .561

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Under the Federal Constitution Art. |, §8, Cl. 17/18 Lands comprising the Hampton Veterans Affairs Medical Center (‘HVAMC") was ceded to the United States in the 1869-70 Act of the Virginia General Assembly c. 325 @ pg. 479, creating a federal enclave and giving the HVAMC exclusive jurisdiction. In a 1976 legislative Act of : the Virginia General Assembly c. 211 @ pgs. 239-242, Virginia repealed subjectmatter jurisdiction over crimes and offenses on federal property and expressly reserved jurisdiction for taxations. In July of 1977 that specific legislative Act was accepted by the Department of Veterans Affairs ("DVA”) on behalf of the HVAMC in what is referred to in this case as “The retrocession letter"; — THE QUESTIONS ARE: () Whether repeal of code of Virginia 87.1-21(1976) of jurisdiction over alleged crimes and offenses committed on federal enclave property, and acceptance of that repeal by the DVA on behalf of the HVAMC, confers concurrent criminal jurisdiction on persons acting under color of State law to prosecute Petitioner for the alleged crime of Stalking and annoying calls under Virginia criminal process, when the alleged crimes are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Justice or U.S. Attorney under 18 U.S.C. §13 and 38 CFR §814.560 and .561. (2) Whether the retrocession letter in this case, in light of the 1976 legislative Act, confers concurrent criminal jurisdiction on persons acting under color of State law . to use a State court criminal process against petitioner for alleged crimes committed on HVAMC property. i RELATED CASES Commonwealth of Virginia v. Lawrence Mattison case No. 171012 Lawrence Mattison v. Commonwealth of Virginia, U.S. S. Ct. case No. 17-8868 In re Lawrence Mattison (Habeas petition) U.S. S. Ct. case No. 19-7509

Docket Entries

2020-06-15
Rehearing DENIED.
2020-05-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
2020-05-11
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-04-20
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-26
Waiver of right of respondent Barbara T. Hanna to respond filed.
2020-03-16
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-02-21
Waiver of right of respondents Tonya R. Henderson-Stith and Bonnie Louise Jones to respond filed.
2020-02-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Barbara T. Hanna
Benjamin M. MasonMason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., Respondent
Benjamin M. MasonMason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., Respondent
Lawrence Mattison
Lawrence E. Mattison — Petitioner
Lawrence E. Mattison — Petitioner
Tonya R. Henderson-Stith and Bonnie Louise Jones
Toby Jay HeytensOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
Toby Jay HeytensOffice of the Attorney General, Respondent
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent