Whether U.S. military or civilian courts have exclusive jurisdiction of service members for their overseas conduct on foreign U.S. military installations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1) Whether U.S. military or civilian courts have exclusive jurisdiction of service members for their overseas conduct on foreign U.S. military installations based on the passage of 18 U.S.C. §7(9) and subsequent incorporation of 18 U.S.C. §3261(a)&(d) and whether the Fourth Circuit's previous interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §7(3) in U.S. v. Erdos, 474 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1973) is no longer good law in light of Congress enacting 18 U.S.C. §7(9), which it squarely failed to rule on in Harris’ case, depriving him of Due Process. 2) Whether the Fourth Circuit's decision in Erdos has created such a split and lack of uniformity in the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §7(9) vs. 18 U.S.C. §7(3) between many circuits and between these circuits and military courts that it needs to be overturned in favor of the more recent 18 U.S.C. §7(9). i