Stateless citizen's rights???

Something interesting I came across, comments anybody??

(1) [2:240] United States citizens domiciled abroad: To be a “citizen of a
State,” a person must be both a citizen of the U.S. and domiciled in one particu-
lar state. [Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo–Larrain (1989) 490 US 826, 828;
Brady v. Brown (9th Cir. 1995) 51 F3d 810, 815]
Thus, a U.S. citizen who lives abroad permanently (not domiciled in the U.S.) is
not a “citizen of a State” for diversity purposes. Such “stateless citizens” cannot
sue or be sued in federal court on the basis of diversity juridiction. [Newman-
Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo–Larrain, supra; Coury v. Prot (5th Cir. 1996) 85 F3d 244,
248]

What means diversity purposes and diversity juridiction?

I was looking up Federal law in my books, I'll post those answers but some may appear too technical.

[2:225] Unless your claim “arises under” federal law, diversity jurisdiction is usually the only
way to get into federal court.
Diversity may be established in several ways:
• [2:226] By suing only diverse defendants: Where some of the potential defendants are of diverse citizenship and others are not, consider suing only the diverse defendants. You
are not required to join the nondiverse defendants unless the federal court finds they are
truly “indispensable” under FRCP 19(b) (see ¶ 7:101).
One potential drawback, of course, is that the defendants you sue may not be financially
responsible. But if the other, nondiverse defendants are jointly liable, the defendants
sued may implead them, seeking indemnification (see ¶ 7:301). This may make a judg
ment against the named defendants collectible.
• [2:227] By changing citizenship before filing suit: Diversity is tested as of the time the
lawsuit is filed, not when the cause of action arose (¶ 2:368). Thus, plaintiff can change
his or her citizenship before filing suit in order to create diversity with local defend
ants—provided the change is bona fide (see ¶ 2:370).
• [2:228] By assigning the claim to a nonresident: Diversity jurisdiction does not lie
where a claim has been assigned “improperly or collusively to invoke the jurisdiction o
the court.” [28 USC § 1359; see ¶ 2:408]
But a bona fide sale or transfer of a claim for adequate consideration to a nonresident, in
an arms' length transaction, is a recognized way of establishing diversity (see ¶ 2:412).
• [2:229] By appointing a nonresident trustee: In trust actions, the trustee is the rea
party in interest. Thus, in such actions, it is possible to establish diversity by appointing
a nonresident as the trustee, as long as the appointment was not collusive (¶ 2:380)
However, as to most other legal representatives (e.g., guardians, executors, etc.), the cit
izenship of the representative is deemed to be the same as the party or entity represented
(¶ 2:290.1).
Caution: Federal courts tend to scrutinize carefully the bona fides of any transaction by
which diversity is created after the cause of action arose. If you use any of the above
methods to establish diversity, be prepared to prove the facts necessary to establish bona
fide grounds for diversity jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction is never waived (¶ 2:14) and
can even be raised for the first time on appeal by a party or by the court sua sponte
Thus, if you are wrong on jurisdiction, any victory you obtain could be wiped out, for
cing you to start over again in state court!
a. [2:230] Constitution: The U.S. Constitution, Art. III, § 2 extends the federal judi-
cial power to:
“ Controversies between Citizens of different States and between a State, or the
Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”
However, the lower federal courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by Con
gress (see ¶ 2:4).
b. [2:231] Statute (28 USC § 1332): The basic diversity jurisdiction statute
provides:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, and is between:

• citizens of different States;
• citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state;
• citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are
additional parties; and
• a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff, and citizens of
a State or of different States.“ [28 USC § 1332(a)]
(1) [2:232] Not as broad as Constitution permits: As will be seen, Congress has con-
ferred on the district courts only a limited measure of the judicial power permissible
under the Constitution: i.e., diversity jurisdiction is limited to cases involving more
than $75,000. Another statutory limitation, discussed later, is that corporations are
deemed citizens of several states, which restricts the number of cases in which di-
versity can exist (see ¶ 2:293).
(2) [2:233] Statute strictly construed: The courts have further limited diversity
jurisdiction by construing the diversity statutes strictly. Any doubt as to wheth-
er jurisdiction exists is normally resolved against a finding of such jurisdiction.
[See Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd. (9th Cir. 1983) 704 F2d 1088, 1092;
Sheehan v. Gustafson (8th Cir. 1992) 967 F2d 1214, 1215]
[2:233.1–233.4] Reserved.
(3) [2:233.5] Compare—multiparty, multiforum jurisdiction: Broader diversity jur-
isdiction is authorized in multiparty, multiforum cases involving accidental deaths of
75 or more persons. [28 USC § 1369; see discussion at ¶ 2:343.5 ff.]
[2:234] Purpose of diversity jurisdiction: Diversity jurisdiction exists to provide a
“neutral” forum in cases where one or more of the parties is a citizen of another state or
country; and to protect against local prejudice in state courts. [J.A. Olson Co. v. Winona
5th Cir. 1987) 818 F2d 401, 404; Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of
London (3rd Cir. 1997) 106 F3d 494, 499; Asher v. Pacific Power & Light Co. (ND CA
1965) 249 F.Supp. 671, 674]
(1) [2:235] Comment: Protecting nonresident plaintiffs against prejudice they might
encounter if they had to sue in state courts is certainly a factor. But diversity cases
are not limited to suits by nonresident plaintiffs. Even resident plaintiffs can invoke
federal jurisdiction if there is diversity of citizenship or alienage.

I'm trying to figure out how I now can register to vote in a national election. Spent over 2 decades in the USVI where we aren't allowed to vote for president even though it's a US territory so I don't have a state address & haven't had one since 1982.

Have you ever voted in the US? If so, you need to register as a foreign voter using that address. It doesn't matter if the place has burned down or whatever. Go to FVAP.gov and get the info and the application. I'm not sure what you do if you don't remember where you lived (my old tax returns have all my old addresses!). If you can't figure it out, find a Democrats Abroad member in town. They are trained to get everyone registered, even Republicans! (By the way, you were eligible to vote in VI as a US citizen.)

No, citizens residing in the USVI are NOT eligible to vote in national elections. Thanks for the other info. I'll look into it.