New York City couple faces criminal charges for violating Skaneateles rental law

[allodial]

Yes. That reminds me of a point. The City of Denver consumes the entire County of Denver.

Downtown Denver has the university where the Municipal League is archived. I spent a few hours there. Somebody from Sui Juris paid me to collect METRO 1313 information and the archives were in transition so the archiver just let me go to town. I recited an entire book about METRO 1313 here and so will not elaborate again.

I wonder about your model, about colonies. A UN Colony?

I came across one or more articles or books on home rule cities. One went as far to suggest the home rule city to be just the same as a colony of its state. In Missouri, the legislature regards the independent city called The City of St. Louis to be in its 'territory' or to be its territory. Considering various factors such as the ignorance that has caused governors ant state actors to yield to U.S. territorial jurisdiction which is inapplicable to the several sovereign states of America, it is likely that the UN territorial jurisdiction has crept in with misconstruction of the limits of U.S. territorial jurisdiction.

The 14th amendment I suspect made citizens of the United States resident of the district wherein they reside. Territorial jurisdiction could be unsightly unless adequately restrained.

***

In the St. Louis area, St. Louis County balked at issuing "Gay Marriage Licenses". The mayor of The City of St. Louis got word (from the Feds or from the State AG) that the City of St. Louis could issue them due to lack of any legal impediments (really they were admitting that the Feds had zero authority to tell the states to issue marriage licenses and probably were hoping the mayor of St. Louis's issuance of the would have cognitively impaired herd follow). Since the City of St. Louis is a territory, the state constitutional restriction does not apply--although it DOES apply to the county called St. Louis City. That the mayor was issuing marriages licenses not the county is tacit admission that SCOTUS cannot legislate to anything but the territories. Those not getting the differences between The City of St. Louis and the counties of the state of Missouri might make major cognitive errors. Keep in mind the city has zero authority over the county (which is a subdivision of the state).

(Might the whole gay marriage thing is really a 'smoke test' for the encroachment of territorial jurisdiction? Terra nullis, civil death presumed up to the county external borders, international jurisdiction: same thing?)

So while it may be unlawful for SCOTUS to legislate to the several states, the same restriction may not apply with respect to the territories or the District. So if one sees SCOTUS legislating, then perhaps its rather easy to know who its legislating to.
***

P.S. It might be worth noting that when it came to the divide between St. Louis City and St. Louis County, the dividing line was heavily like this: the Protestants went with St. Louis County and the Roman Catholics went with the City. Stark racial dividing lines that exist in the City (i.e. the St. Louis City and The City of St. Louis 'cojoint') don't quite exist in the County (i.e. St. Louis County and its municipalities) although the attorneys that sit in municipal courts in the County aren't necessarily county folk. It would be most interesting if judges and cops were required to make their religion and nationalities public.

My take is that the Constitution for the United States of America and/or the Northwest Ordinance established a territorial government of the United States. As in "districts" are "states" but they are neither free, sovereign nor independent states. The power of the president of the United States or the U.S. Congress to bind territories does not extend to the sovereign states. However, "dead zones" caused by municipal corporations 'consuming' counties might give rise to a kind of territorial jurisdiction: METRO.