All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 1998 - Bill Cooper
59:21
Conference '98 – Federal Jurisdiction #1 (no intro)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, I want to welcome everybody to our, is this the fifth?
Fifth annual conference.
You've been to every one of them, haven't you?
Missed one?
What, the first one?
Second one?
I know I see you all the time.
Okay, before we begin, I hope you bring a few things to your attention.
Number one, for those of you who have been missing Veritas and staff and publication,
all of you who are subscribers should have received issue number 15 in the mail.
Is there anybody here who's a subscriber who did not receive issue number 15 in the mail?
Okay, Jay, I want you to see, and make sure your address is correct.
Give her your current address.
It hasn't changed, has it?
No.
Well, just give her your address, and we'll make sure that everything's straightened out.
Issue number 16 goes to press day after tomorrow.
And the mail should be there after.
Two other things.
Since our last conference, when we challenged everyone to do what we're doing, put out a newspaper and tell the truth, If the newspapers in your hometown are not telling the truth, some people will go home and get it.
Al McCurkey.
How do you distribute your paper?
Guess what this guy's doing?
He gives it to all the homeless people and tells them they can sell it for whatever they get and keep the money.
Gets distributed.
How about that?
Marketing genius.
In my hometown, we have the Roundabout paper.
I didn't bring this in because it has a front page story about me.
I brought it in because it's a current issue and the next issue does not appear until Wednesday.
Okay?
This is put out by our neighbor, Glenn Jacobs.
It's called the Round Mountain Paper.
As you can see, uh, well, you can't see.
But as you used to be able to see, the way he started this out, he didn't have a word processor, couldn't afford a computer and all that stuff, so he wrote it all.
on the layout sheets.
Took it to Gallup and they motored it and everybody got a hand printed paper.
Same size, same thickness, everything was beautiful.
Now it has a work processor and all that kind of stuff and it's printed with regular type
set and it's a beautiful paper.
If you've been through this paper, I know I gave every one of you one personally, unless
you came in, am I getting feedback again?
Unless you came in a little later today, in which case you can go back and get one off
in a single back there.
you And if you go through it, you'll see that he's printing all the stuff that people need to read.
This is what Pamela did in this paper.
There's local events, things that concern the local people, things that concern us on a national level, patriotic things, constitutional issues, all the things that people should be really reading.
Now, you know what's really neat about this paper?
Glenn Jacobs is as poor as a church mouse.
Glenn Jacobs doesn't have any money.
And I'm serious.
I'm dead serious.
Glenn is poor.
He lives on the street called Poverty Flat.
Because when the Round Dollars were built, Poverty Flat was where all the poor people lived.
His family was poor.
They're still poor.
He publishes his paper, puts it out, charges 25 cents a copy, still puts it on the table for his family, but he doesn't make any money doing it.
He does it because it needs to be done.
You can do the same thing.
And if you have any kind of marketing expertise, you can make a living making a paper that people need to read, and you can give your community an alternative source of news and information, which is important.
You know why I published my paper?
Because somebody told me I couldn't do it.
When anybody tells me, you want me to do something, tell me I can't do it.
I'll do it so quick it'll make your head spin.
Whether I can do it or not doesn't make any difference to me.
It never has.
That shouldn't make any difference to you.
You know why a lot of people don't do this?
I say, why aren't you doing this?
Well, I don't know everybody.
Neither do I. Neither does Glenn.
If you don't believe me, I'll drive you over to Glenn's house and introduce you to him and you can see for yourself.
Maybe it was this guy.
No money.
So, you can do it.
What's stopping you from doing it?
If you're not doing it, what's stopping you from doing it?
Time?
I don't have any time.
Glenn doesn't have any time.
He has a family to feed.
See, these are all these rationalizations why we shouldn't do something.
It's just a way for us to feel good because, really, somebody else pulled the load.
And what I'm telling you, that don't cut the mustard.
You can feel good all you want to, but pulled the load, you'll feel better.
Believe me, you will.
You really will.
I'm going to turn this down just a little bit here.
Still can't see that.
Not now.
I hope that takes care of it.
Okay.
Now, this afternoon, you've got me.
You know what that means?
That means you're going to be taking copious doses and worries of it.
And what I'm going to teach you is some incredible information that some of you may know, most of you don't know even exists properly.
And, if you pay attention, we'll set you free.
Now, I've had a personal policy in the past of never teaching anybody anything about law.
I am not a lawyer.
I am not going to teach you to be a lawyer.
What I'm going to teach you today is not going to make you some kind of wizard that can go into court and solve all your problems.
I am not giving you legal advice.
I'm going to teach you what I know and what a lot of other people know.
Okay?
I've studied for many, many years.
I've worked with people like Lawrence Becraft, who's one of the preeminent faithfully attorneys in this country.
I worked with a lot of other people across the country who are digging—Dan Metter, for instance—who are digging to uncover the truth and the law instead of the deception that we are used to dealing with.
And we share our information.
And if you watch Veritas Earth and have been reading Veritas for very long, you've seen some of it, quite a bit of it in there.
Some of it is so strange and so weird, compared to the fantasy land that we've been taught to believe in, that people find it just too fantastic to believe.
But the truth is, once you learn this stuff, people like me find the fantasy that all the rest of the people are living in too fantastic to believe.
It's as if the human race really doesn't have a brain, and is incapable of original thought,
or deductive reasoning, or any kind of investigative or research ability.
Or else they just don't give a damn, and if they don't give a damn, they're going to get
exactly what they deserve, which they're going to be—the end result of that is they're
going to be once again enslaved as they were for most of human history.
I'm going to turn this down again, because I see—can you hear me now?
Yes.
Try that.
Try that.
Can you still hear me?
Hear feedback?
Okay.
The reason I'm going to give you this is to give you an understanding that what you thought about the law is wrong.
I'm going to teach you some things about the Internal Revenue Service also today.
And believe me, once you know this, what I'm going to tell you doesn't mean you can take it and run down and tear all your Internal Revenue Service books.
To get into that battle, that's a real battle.
You've got to be stubborn like me.
You've got to draw the line.
Be willing to fight the fight and die if you have to for the right thing.
Because that's really what you've got to do.
Because those guys, when they come after you, they don't quit.
And it's just a forever battle.
I've been battling them for 12 years.
So far I mean.
If they can drop out of the sky tomorrow, I'm killing them.
That's the kind of battle it is, so we live in uncertainty.
I happen to know from watching them that I'm safe for another year, because I'm a leader in the Patriot community.
If and when they ever come after me, it will be a few weeks before April 15th.
April 15th just went by, so I'm safe for another year.
The reason they would do that is they see You were listening to this guy and you thought he had it, you know?
You better file and pay your income taxes because we took him down and we'll take you down, too.
That's why they do that.
That's why they do it right before April 15th.
Okay?
So, this will give you a basis upon which to found a program of research and investigation through which, after a long time of study and work, You can stand toe-to-toe with them and fight the battle like me and many other people are.
And if you're really a principled individual who really believes in the principles and ideals which you all tell me that you believe in, sooner or later you must draw a line and say, enough is enough.
I'm going to fight the battle because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason.
Fear be damned.
Kill me, be damned.
Take all my possessions, be damned.
I must do this because it is the right thing to do.
And until people did that, you're in danger of going backwards in the evolutionary course of human history.
See, for most of the history of the human race, we were slaves.
We were owned by somebody.
Some king, some queen, some sultan, some emir, or some dude that just had a bigger ass.
You know?
When they created the United States of America, it was the first time in the history of the entire human race that any people had ever been free.
And we're going to give it back.
I don't understand it.
It's the ultimate achievement, in my estimation, of human kind.
To give man freedom and hold him responsible for his actions.
To go backwards into slavery or into some kind of feudal system or some system where we give up our rights in exchange for a promise of security and food on the table and all that kind of stuff is an admission of absolute incompetence for the road of life.
It's an admission that we're not adults, we're children.
It's an admission that we can't use our brain, that we don't deserve to be free.
It's complete capitulation is what it is.
Surrender to childhood.
I've said this many times and I'll say it again.
Most people, here's what they do.
They spend the first 18 to 21 years of their life struggling against their parents to become free and responsible and strike out on their own.
Right, Melissa?
Melissa just graduated from high school.
She can't wait.
We're in college.
She can get out on her own.
Now, here's what happens to most people.
I'm not saying this is going to happen to you, Melissa.
I don't know.
You don't know yet either.
But you're going to find out real quick and so will everybody who's going to be watching you.
You get out there and then you find out, hey, this ain't no easy life.
This ain't no pre-fuck, man.
It's rough out here.
If I don't make these payments, they come and take this stuff.
My credit record's ruined.
I can't ever charge any of that.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I can't get a job.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
All there is is, you know, nobody wants to hire me because I'm too young, but I can get a job dishwashing, but I don't like dishwashing.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And so, after 10 or 15 years of this crap struggling against the system to make it, people say, screw this.
I want to be a little child again.
I want my daddy to take care of me.
That's why socialism is so attractive to most people.
It promises you a clean diaper.
It promises you a place to sleep.
It promises you a bottle of milk and you can suck on the nipple all you want to and it will never go empty.
They promise you that they will give you a job or something to do, and if you don't want
to work, they'll still feed you and take care of you and put you to bed, tell you what time
you can get up, what time you can go to bed, and if you can drive or if you can't drive,
and you're going to be safe because they want the criminals to come in and get you and all
that kind of stuff.
A lot of people give up struggling to be free and revert back to childhood socialism that
becomes the day.
That's what's so attractive about it.
That's why people suck up socialism.
It lets you be the child again that you left behind somewhere.
Way back there.
My hair, Bob's hair is back there.
Right, Bob?
But if you understand what that truly means, it means enslavement.
And if you love freedom like I do, it is the most distasteful, most terrible consequence
or end result that I could possibly imagine.
Because being a child of a socialist is no different than being a child in a home where
you couldn't choose your parents and they may not be good parents.
And they can be good or bad, and you know.
And you have non-responsibilities or rights, you have privileges.
And Daddy can give you privileges or take them away anytime he wants.
And Daddy gets real mad at you and can really confuse you.
You can really beat your butts into your room, kick your ass and slam the door and lock you in a bar or wherever you want to do it.
A good daddy's going to do that.
And by and large, all governmental systems, no matter what they start out to be, disintegrate into tyranny.
Because the governmental system will accumulate power as long as it can, until it becomes And you become the worm that means nothing.
All governments will proceed in that direction until they're stopped, or they decay and disintegrate.
When the Mounting Fathers established the United States of America, they put into place
checks and balances, created a contract called the Constitution between the states and what
they created, the federal government, that limited the powers of the federal government,
protected the rights of the states and the people, and granted to government certain
restricted limited powers so that it could conduct its business for the general welfare
and good of the states and of the people.
It wasn't supposed to ever be what it is today.
It has done what all governments do.
It began ignoring its limitations, conning the people into believing that it has powers
that it does not, exceeding its limitations, grabbing and bringing to it powers that it
does not have and has never had.
And I'm going to reveal some of that to you today so that hopefully you will be brought
to the state of awareness and awaken this, and you can be a real people instead of what
I call a sheeple.
And if you go out the door, just to the left outside the door, you'll see there's a bench
or a couple of chairs there with some wool.
Sheep's hiding on it.
That's from last year.
Some guys came in with sheep wool.
When they left, they left the wool behind and they became real people.
That's why it's on display for all to see.
Okay, now we gave you a pad and we gave you a pen.
And the reason we gave you that is so you will use it.
So I want to see furious writing going on while I'm talking.
Okay?
In the United States, this is federal jurisdiction, and this is going to blow your mind.
Everything I'm going to give you today is going to blow your mind, literally.
Federal jurisdiction.
By the way, this was written by Lawrence Becraft, a good friend of mine, and as I already told you, one of the preeminent Patriot attorneys in this country.
In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, one being that of the states within their own territorial boundaries, and the other being the federal jurisdiction.
So, the two jurisdictions are the states within their own territorial boundaries and the federal jurisdiction.
Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control, and govern real and personal property, individuals, and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given state.
It's important that you understand that.
Legislative power to regulate, control, and govern real and personal property Individuals and enterprises within the territory limits of any given state.
In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited.
Anyone who's ever read the Constitution cannot but be aware of that fact.
With the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislating power and territory.
Federal government has no authority or jurisdiction within the territorial boundary of any of the several states of the Union.
Then what are they doing there?
They're exceeding their power.
They're exceeding their jurisdiction.
They are committing crimes.
They're behaving in a criminal manner, operating under the color of law.
They are outlaws.
And I tell them that when I see them.
You're an outlaw.
You're nothing but a gangster.
No, I'm just doing my job.
No, you're not.
You're an outlaw.
Read this again.
Copy the Constitution.
Go read it.
Then you come back and tell me what you are.
They never come back.
No.
And they don't quit their job.
You know why?
Because they have a wife at home.
You can't quit your job.
You work at a job for 10 years.
If you quit your job, you lose all the safety and security and medical benefits and all this, and I won't sleep with you ever again.
Right?
It's the truth.
Part of the control mechanism is to teach women that men must provide them with security.
If men can't do that, they're worthless.
So they can't quit.
So they lose their family.
They lose their children.
They lose their wife.
They lose their lives.
I'm not saying anything against women.
Women are like the rest of us.
We have all been brainwashed to fit the role of manipulated or manipulator within a control system.
And we all function, for the most part, exactly like the little enemies that they want us to be.
Happens to be the truth.
And this comes out real explicitly chapter one of my book, Behold the Pale Horse, which is
silent weapons for quiet wars, talks about the family and family structure and how it works to
maintain the control mechanism for the state.
Notwithstanding the clarity of this simple principle, the line of demarcation between
line of demarcation between these two jurisdictions, and the extent and reach of each,
these two jurisdictions and the extent and reach of each Now, withstanding the clarity of this simple principle, the
has become somewhat blurred due to popular misconceptions and the efforts expended by
the federal government to conceal one of its major weaknesses.
Only by resorting to history and case law can this obfuscation be clarified, and the
two distinct jurisdictions be readily seen.
Which means hidden, veiled, smoke screen.
The original thirteen colonies of America were each separated, or excuse me, each separately
established by charters from the English Crown.
Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united.
Each had its own governor, legislative assembly, and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English Parliament.
Now, don't get the crown confused with the queen.
Does anybody know the difference between the crown and the queen?
What is it?
The crown is the one-mile-square Masonic entity which controls the Bank of England, called the City of London.
The Queen is something entirely different.
So what does that tell you?
you The ruler of the colonies was the Bank of England, a masonic
control organization.
The political connections of the separate colonies to the English Crown and Parliament
descended into an rebellious state of affairs as the direct result of parliamentary acts
adopted in the late 1760s and early 1770s.
Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental
Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October of 1974, excuse
me, in October of 1774, and his purpose was to submit a petition of grievances to the
British Parliament and Crown.
It's a good thing.
It really served quite a different purpose, though, didn't it?
Because what did it produce?
What did they produce from that?
Anybody ever hear of the Declaration of Independence?
By the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these parliamentary acts of which they complained as impolite unjust and cruel, as well as unconstitutional and most
dangerous and destructive of American rights.
But further, they asserted that these acts manifested designs, schemes and plans which
demonstrate a system formed to enslave America.
And that's what's happening now.
And that emboldened appeal, presentation of that grievance to the crown, they went even
further and declared their independence within just a short period of time.
I don't think if they hadn't done that particular exercise of trying to enumerate the grievances of petition to Crown that there ever would have been a declaration of independence.
Because most people live in fear.
So you take a step, and if your foot doesn't get chopped off, you tend to take another step, right?
That's basically how it works.
Matters grew worse, and between October 1775 and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England, and several adopted constitutions within the newly formed states.
By July 1776, the exercise of British authority of all of the colonies was not recognized in any degree.
The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal Declaration of Independence.
And then war.
Matters grew worse between October 1775 and the middle of 1776.
the middle of 1776. Each of the colonies, separately, severed their ties and relations
with England and several adopted constitutions, excuse me, I just read that here, the legal
effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new state a separate and
independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction.
This was clearly shown in McIlwain versus Fox. Fox is lessee, eight United States, or
eight US Supreme Court, four French, 209, 212, 1808, where it was held by the court,
quote, this opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the
civil state, which composed this union, so far, at least as regarded their municipal
regulators, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent,
to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them
from concessions made by the British king. The Treaty of Peace contains a recognition
of their independence, not a grant of it.
A recognition.
From hence it results that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such states from the time they were impacted."
End quote.
The consequences of independence was again explained in Harcourt v. Gilear, 25, U.S.
Supreme Court, 12 weeks, 523,526,527,1827, where the Supreme Court stated, quote, There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the Confederated States.
There could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from or independent of some one of the states.
Each declared itself sovereign and independent according to the limits of its territory.
Notice that everything depends upon territorial boundaries and limits.
The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs as the Declaration of Independence has at this hour."
Thus, unequivocally, in July 1776, the new states possess all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits.
This condition of supreme sovereignty of each state over all property and persons within the borders thereof continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation.
Article 2 of that document declared, quote, Article 2.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembles, end quote.
Do you know the difference between an Act of Congress and an Act in Congress assembled?
Anybody know the difference between an Act of Congress and an Act produced in Congress assembled?
Yes?
Well, it was one day, but that's not the real major difference, no.
An Act of Congress does not apply to the states or the citizens of the states.
The act produced in Congress, a symbol, applies to the states and to anybody engaged in any
activity over which the federal government has been given limited power by the Constitution.
Do you know the difference between an act of Congress and an act in Congress, a symbol?
Anybody know the difference between an act of Congress and an act produced in Congress assembled?
Yes?
Well, it was one day, but that's not the real major difference, no.
An act of Congress does not apply to the states or the citizens of the states.
The fact that the act produced in Congress, a symbol, applies to the states and to anybody
engaged in any activity over which the federal government has been given limited power by
the Constitution of the United States of America.
And in the United States Attorney's Handbook, it clearly states, an act of Congress, a symbol,
has no authority within the states or over the citizens of the states.
does not apply.
But you'll never get an United States Attorney to admit that.
Thank you.
As the history of the Confederacy As the history of the Confederation government demonstrated, each state was indeed sovereign and independent to such a degree that it made the central government created by the Confederation fairly ineffectual.
These defects of the Confederation government strained the relations between and among the states, and the remedy became the calling of a Constitutional Convention.
But, you see, even Larry can make mistakes because that's not the truth.
They did not call it a Constitutional Convention.
History clearly shows that the several states of the Confederation sent delegates to sit down and amend the Articles of Confederation in order to make the Confederation stronger, to make it work in manner that it was not working.
What did the founding fathers do when they got there?
They took a vote, and since they had a majority, And since they were sitting, they threw out what their states had sent them to do and did something that they were not empowered to do.
They created a constitution and changed the government.
Were they authorized to do that?
No.
So, actually, what they did was an outlaw thing.
They did something that they were not empowered to do.
Their states did not send them there.
The colonies didn't send them there to do that.
They had no power to do it, whatsoever.
How many of you heard of recently the attempt to create a conference of the states in the last several years?
Raise your hands.
What they were trying to do was the same thing the founding fathers did.
They wanted to get a majority of the states to send representatives to the conference of the states where they would, by majority vote, create a new government and throw the Constitution in the trash can.
That's what that was all about.
They were trying to duplicate what the Founding Fathers did when they created this country, founded upon the Constitution.
Since they were not empowered to do that, and since the Constitution does not abrogate or destroy or amend or abolish the Articles of Confederation, the Articles of Confederation are still part of the law in this country.
How many of you knew that?
The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787 to attend the Constitutional Convention
met, and it wasn't a constitutional convention.
It was a convention convened to find out remedies to amend the Articles of Confederation and
make the Confederation work and cure the problems which they perceived that it had.
They met with the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the states.
Although the product of the Convention was more than this, but no intention was demonstrated for the states to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by them at that time, and indeed the Constitution is finally drafted, continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the states as existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Since they did not abolish the Articles of Confederation, they had no choice.
The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution for the United States of America, which defined federal jurisdiction as follows, and get this, okay?
This is very important.
You know, the founding fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, they didn't write something that had to be interpreted.
These were geniuses.
They understood the English language better than anybody living today.
If you get an 1828 Webster's Dictionary, which basically was the same English language that they spoke and wrote, you can read their writing according to the meaning defined in that dictionary, and you can understand what it was they said without any Supreme Court or anybody else having to come along and tell you what they meant or what their intent was or what they wrote.
It's clear.
Quote, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever.
That's pretty heavy, isn't it?
I mean, one of the limitations of that is that they can do anything they want, can't they?
No.
Because listen to this.
Over such district, not exceeding ten miles square.
Now listen to what I just said.
Not exceeding ten miles squared!
That's why an act of Congress does not apply to the states or the citizens of the states.
An act of Congress only adds jurisdiction.
Over.
As made by a section of a particular state in the acceptance of Congress to become the seat of government of the United States and to exercise life authority over all places purchased.
Are you listening carefully, folks?
Constitution is clear.
These people are way outside their bounds.
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such a district, not exceeding ten miles square, as made by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places, purchase By the consent of the legislature of the state, in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dark yards, and other evil buildings.
Period.
End quote.
That's it.
The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution is obvious.
you.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the states retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders.
The Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate states or external affairs, and it had no jurisdiction within the states, period.
This defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally dependent upon any given state for protection, and this dependency did, in fact, cause embarrassment for that and for the Confederation as a whole.
During the Revolutionary War, while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted its members.
The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania proved themselves powerless to remedy this
situation, so Congress was forced to flee, first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally
to Annapolis, Maryland.
Thus, this clause was inserted into the Constitution, giving jurisdiction to Congress over its capital
and such other places which Congress might purchase for forts, magazines, arsenals, and
other useful buildings wherein the state ceded jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government.
Now, what does that mean?
Does that mean that Congress can send an agent into the state of Arizona and purchase a piece
of land and set up a building and have authority over that building and that land?
That would not legislate.
Not without the legislative body of the state of Arizona ceding the land to the federal government.
Now, how are they ignoring that?
should come immediately to all of your minds.
What happened in Oklahoma City recently?
...
A federal building blew up, didn't it?
Did the United States have authority or jurisdiction over that property?
Why not?
Because even today, They can't find any evidence that the legislature of the state of Oklahoma ceded that property to the federal government.
In that case, does the federal government have jurisdiction to try Timothy McVeigh and Terry Engels?
No.
It was a state matter, state jurisdiction, state venue from beginning to end.
They have succeeded in exceeding the limitations, lawful limitations, of the Constitution, haven't they?
What else did they do that was unconstitutional?
The venue, what they did.
They moved the trial to Colorado.
What does the Constitution say?
All trials for all crimes will be held in the state where the crime occurred.
It's in the Constitution.
It's the supreme law of the land.
You cannot move the trial to another state.
Isn't that incredible?
They do it every day.
In most America, there's no brainwash.
They never question it.
You know why they never question it?
Because they never read the Constitution and those that did don't understand it.
They've been taught that it was written by a bunch of dying old men over 200 years ago who don't understand the complexities of the modern age, and that for some reason, they weren't writing in English, so what they wrote, we should not be able to understand unless they interpret it for us.
Bullshit.
Total crap.
It's a lie.
Beginning to see?
Jurisdiction is a big thing.
Almost everybody who immediately challenges jurisdiction when they are arrested within the territorial boundaries of the state and hauled into a federal court are set free.
How many people do that?
Almost none.
Very few.
They have no jurisdiction.
Other than in these areas, the flaws of the Constitution did not exist.
The Constitution did not operate to cede further jurisdiction to the federal government and
jurisdiction over those areas which had not been associated, remained within the states.
.
And still to this day, without a legislative act of the legislature of the state in heaven, Well, there have been no real provisions in the Articles which permitted the Confederation of Congress to acquire property and possess exclusive jurisdiction over the property.
The above clause filled an essential need by permitting the federal government to acquire land for the seed of government and other purposes from certain of the states.
These lands were deemed essential to enable the United States to perform the powers delegated by the Constitution and accession of lands by any particular Perhaps the best explanations for this clause in the Constitution were set forth in Essay No.
43 of the Federalist.
Quote, The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it.
It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union.
I might say of the world by virtue of its general supremacy.
Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its procedures interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the state comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring, among the national councils, an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government in dissatisfaction with the other members of the confederacy.
This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single state and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government as still further to abridge its necessary independence.
The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature.
And as it is to be appropriated to this use, with the consent of the state seeding it,
as the state will no doubt provide a compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens
inhabiting it, and the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become
willing parties to the session, as they will have had their voice in the election of the
government, which is to exercise authority over them as a municipal legislature for local
purposes derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them, and as the
authority of the legislature of the state, and of the inhabitants of the seeded part
of it, to concur to the session will be derived from the whole people of the state in their
adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.
The necessity of a life authority over force magazines, etc., established by the general
government, is not less evident.
The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them,
require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular state, nor would
it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire union may depend to be in any
degree dependent on a particular member of it.
All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the states concerned in every such establishment."
Since the ratification of the present United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court and all lower courts have had many opportunities to construe and apply this clause of the Constitution.
The essence of all these decisions manifests a legal principle that the states of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders.
Excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded to the United States.
Not just jurisdiction, but explicit jurisdiction.
Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was, which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the warship Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts, The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute this crime and argued that the federal circuit courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's administrative jurisdiction.
In argument, the Equal Supreme Court counsel for the United States admitted as much.
Quote, the exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in courts and dockyards ceded to them It is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the sessions are made.
It could be derived in no other manner, because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein."
In holding that the state of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over this crime, the court held, quote, "'What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?' We answer without hesitation.
The jurisdiction of a state is coextensive with its territory, coextensive with its legislating power.
The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction.
Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district and over all places purchased
by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection
of ports, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other people buildings.
It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation, which is jurisdiction, is united
with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states.
It is difficult to compare the two sections together without feeling a conviction not
to be strengthened by any commentary on them that, in describing the judicial power, the
framers of our Constitution had not in view any cession of territory or, which is essentially
the same of general jurisdiction."
The ship upon which the crime was committed was sitting in the harbor, which had not been
ceded by the legislature of the state of Massachusetts to the United States of America.
Does everybody understand that?
Now, what would they do today?
They'd say the state had no authority, the federal government would try the person for the crime, and nobody would even challenge it.
Because nobody understands it.
They have all the regulations they want, but regulations do not apply when they are unconstitutional, are not enforceable, have no lawful standing, period.
Any law which is an unconstitutional law is null and void upon its very implementation.
The Court in Bevins thus established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction.
To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent, and meaning of the entire United States Constitution.
The decision in Bevis was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years.
In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, Common 309, Pennsylvania, 1818, the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United
States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state
law.
In the citing that the law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled the sale of federal
land, the court held, and I quote, the legislation and authority of Congress is confined to sessions
by particular states for the seat of government and purchases made by consent of the legislature
of the state for the purpose of electing courts.
The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states.
Of all territory within the limits not ceded to or purchased by Congress with the assent of the state legislature, To prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states."
A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the state of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal forum.
In People v. Godfrey, 17, Johns, 225, 223, New York, 1819, that court held that the court
was subject to the jurisdiction of the state, since the lands, therefore, had not been ceded
to the United States or Canada.
Hmm.
Bye.
Do you understand?
They're pulling a scam job on us, big time.
Quote, to oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws and to punish
crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state
is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States.
In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed that to break the offense within
the jurisdiction of the courts of the Union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction
of any state.
It is not, he says, the offense committed, but the place at which it is committed, which
must be out of the jurisdiction of the state.
The decisional authority upon which this court relies is the United States v. Evans Supreme.
At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar facts situation was before a federal court.
The only difference being that the murder was committed on land which had been ceded to the United States.
In United States v. Cornell, 25 fed cases.
And that's it for today's broadcast, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm sorry we ran out of time, but we did.
And that's what happens when you don't attend our conferences.
You just very simply miss out.
Good night, folks, and God bless each and every single one of you.
Good night.
william cooper Be sure and tune in tomorrow at the same time for another episode of the Hour of the Tongue.
You're listening to 101.1 FM Eager.
Classic radio like you always wished it could be.
101.1 FM is your non-profit community service radio station.
With a spoon.
With a bowl.
With a music in your soul.
You can cheer things up with the dum-dum-dum of the music in your soul.
With a gum.
With a grin.
Get a wiggle on your chin.
▲
Export Selection