All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 1998 - Bill Cooper
01:01:38
Conference '98 – Federal Jurisdiction #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks for watching!
Please subscribe!
Please recall that it's our... Merry September, beautiful people.
The truth is that there is no such thing as a God.
The truth is that there is no such thing as a God.
I'm a rock star.
You're listening once again to the Hour of the Time. I'm William Cooper. Ladies and gentlemen,
we're going to continue today where we left off yesterday with my lecture on federal jurisdiction
at our Conference 98.
This lecture took place on May the 25th at the Thunder Horse Ranch.
Please take notes and pay attention.
You're not going to be able to finish this, this hour, and we're not going to continue it after this hour, but you'll get the drift.
I mean, you're going to be within five or six minutes of the finish of the lecture when this broadcast is over.
Please pay very close attention.
In New York v. Milne, 36th United States, 11th Pat, 102, 1837, the question before the
court involved an attempt by the city of New York to assess penalties against the master
For his failure to make a report regarding the persons his ship brought to New York, and against the master's contention that the act was unquestionable, unconstitutional, and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the court held, quote, If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York.
If we look at the person or unit that operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction."
End quote.
And again, quote, same court ruling.
They are these, that a state has sustained undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territory and limits.
And any foreign nation Where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States.
You realize what that says?
This rogue federal agent, who is committing criminal acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, is what?
He's under state jurisdiction, isn't he?
He can be arrested by the county sheriff or the city police or, if your state has a state police or highway patrol or whatever you call it, tried, convicted, and thrown in prison.
and the federal government can't save him.
That's incredible, isn't it?
Are these speakers working?
Huh?
Doesn't sound like it, does it?
Test reception?
I don't know.
What happened?
Did anybody turn anything off over there?
Oh, wait a minute.
Oh, my God.
If you guys knock, I guess we'll be a weapon for connection.
It's always Bob.
I'm trying to do a good job right now, and you're making fun of me.
I know.
Whenever somebody comes to tell me they're going to do something for my own good, I run to stop them right there.
Please don't do anything for my own good.
That by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of
the state to advance the safety, happiness, and prosperity of its people, and to provide
for its general welfare by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive
to these ends.
Where the power over the particular subject or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered
or restrained in the manner just stated.
you.
But all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained, and that consequently, in relation to these, the authority of the state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.
Pretty heavy, isn't it?
What do you think would happen if every sheriff in the country understood this?
Do they understand it?
Why don't they understand it?
Who has the answer to that?
Because the sheriff is you!
Isn't he?
Is the sheriff trained in law?
I'll tell you what, if he was, we'd be in even more trouble, because they don't teach this in law schools either.
But he's not trained.
He doesn't study this.
Who is the sheriff?
In every county in this country, who is the sheriff?
He's Joe Blow's citizen, just like people sitting in this room and people walking around out there, ignorant, who gets elected to the position.
Most times he's no more qualified than my Aunt Maisie sitting in a rocking chair doing her knitting is qualified to be President of the United States.
Which is not to say that she isn't.
But there's no proof that she is.
I can tell you this, I wouldn't want her to be.
Because I know her.
So, what's your job?
Educate your sheriff.
I've educated mine to the point where when somebody asks me to write a column for a newspaper, he brings it over to me and I write it.
I write it for him.
So many years later, in the question of federal jurisdiction was once again
before the court.
or...
This case involved a real property title dispute with one of the parties claiming a right to the contested property via a U.S.
tapas.
Did you ever hear of a U.S.
tapas?
How many of you have a U.S.
tapas?
On your property?
Nobody?
You do?
Would you explain to them what a U.S.
patent is?
You're talking about the land patent?
Mm-hmm.
I've heard about a lot of stuff, and what I've done is I sent the two of them a bill, and I'm going to send you a land patent.
It cost me $2.68, so you have to search by the top.
Now, I haven't followed through all the way, but a land patent is for 160 acres, and all I have to do is pull my part out of 160 acres, and it's going to be clear below your title.
You know why?
Because if you default, they can't come and foreclose on it.
The county can't tax it.
The city can't tax it.
They can't sell you what you can build or can't build on it.
They can't zone it.
You know why? Because if you default, they can't come and foreclose on it. The county
can't tax it. The city can't tax it. They can't tell you what you can build or can't
build on it. They can't zone it. They can't screw with you if you have a patent on your
land. You don't think land patents are real?
Then why is the Supreme Court ruling on it?
Look it up yourself.
I'm going to give you the stats.
The lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay.
In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the court held, quote, We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed.
Because the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction,
sovereignty, or eminent domain within the limits of the state or elsewhere, except in
the cases in which it is expressly granted, Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty
and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits subject to the common law."
How many of you have been told there's no common law?
How many of you have heard Dan Rather not on television talk about the loony tune people
who believe in common law?
Here's the Supreme Court recognizing common law, right here.
Wow.
And how many of you believe that Dan Rather not knows anything at all?
Thank you.
The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be which sets forth the law at this point fully.
Here, the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth Federal
Enclave was being subjected to taxation by Canvas, and the company claimed an exemption
from state taxation because its property was within federal jurisdiction and outside of
that city.
In holding that the railroad company's property could be taxed, the court carefully explained
federal jurisdiction within the states.
The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes
named is, however, essential under the Constitution to the transfer to the general government
with the title of political jurisdiction and domination where lands are acquired without
such consent.
The possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in
some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor.
In other words, they have a special status and they're subject to the jurisdiction of
the state.
Exclusive jurisdiction.
The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government,
is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property
of private individuals in quote.
.
Boy, have they pulled the wool over our eyes or what?
Thus the case is decided, within the 19th century, clearly to swell to the extent and scope of both state and federal
jurisdiction.
In essence, these cases, among many others, hold that the jurisdiction of any particular state is coextensive with
its borders or territory, and all persons and property located or found therein are
subject to that jurisdiction.
This jurisdiction is superior.
Federal jurisdiction results from a conveyance of state jurisdiction to the federal government,
for lands owned or otherwise possessed by the federal government, and thus federal jurisdiction is extremely
limited in nature.
There is no federal jurisdiction if there be no grant or cession of jurisdiction by the state to the federal government.
Therefore, federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states,
and the territories in insular possessions of the United States, period.
The above principles of jurisdiction established in the last century continue their validity today.
Nothing has changed, with only one minor exception.
In the last century, the sessions of jurisdiction by states to the federal government were by
legislative acts which typically ceded full jurisdiction to the federal government, thus
placing in the hands of the federal government the troublesome problem of dealing with and
governing scattered, localized federal inclaves which had been totally surrendered by the
states.
With the advent of this century, of large federal works projects and national parks,
the problems regarding management of these areas by the federal government were magnified.
During the last century, it was thought that if a state ceded jurisdiction to the federal
government, the session granted full and complete jurisdiction.
But with the ever-increasing number of separate tracts of land falling within the jurisdiction of the federal government in this century, it was obviously determined by both federal and state public officials that the states should retain greater control over these ceded lands And the courts have acknowledged the constitutionality of varying degrees of state jurisdiction and control over lands so ceded.
You guys thought I was going to tell you that the government had more power, didn't you?
They had even less.
It's not bad news, it's good news.
One of the first cases to acknowledge the proposition that a state could retain some jurisdiction over properties ceded to the federal government was Surplus Trading Company.
Versus Cook.
281, United States Supreme Court, 647, 50, S. period, C.T.
period, 455, 1930.
Here, a state attempt to assess an ad valorem tax on army blankets located within a federal army camp was found invalid and beyond the state's jurisdiction.
But in regards to the proposition that a state could make a qualified session of jurisdiction to the federal government, the court held, quote, the state undoubtedly may cede her jurisdiction to the United States and may make the session either absolute or qualified, as to her may appear desirable, provided that qualification is consistent with the purposes for which the reservation is maintained and is accepted by the United States.
And where such a session is made and accepted, it will be determinative of the jurisdiction of both the United States and the state within the reservation."
End quote.
How could they rule otherwise?
It's a contract, and the Constitution protects the right of contract.
So anything which is contracted between the state and the United States regarding a session of land and contracting limited jurisdiction Must stand on the right of contract.
Can't stand.
And since it's a constitutional right, it's going to stand.
So, after ceding property to the federal government, the state reserves the right of limited jurisdiction and makes that a contractual reservation in ceding the land to the United States.
the United States accepts that reservation as a part of the contract, it becomes law.
Two cases decided in 1937 by the United States Supreme Court further clarify the constitutionality
of a reservation of partial state jurisdiction over lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the
United States. In James v. Greenewald Contracting Company, 302 United States Supreme Court,
134,58 S.C.T. 208, 1937, the state of West Virginia sought to impose a tax upon the gross
receipts of the company arising from a contract which it had made with the United States for
bills and dams. One of the issues involved in this case was the validity of the state
tax imposed on the receipts derived by the company from work performed on lands to which
the state has ceded, quote, current, end quote, jurisdiction to the United States.
The court held that a state could reserve and qualify any session of jurisdiction for lands owned by the United States.
Since the state had done so here, the court upheld this part of the challenged tax notwithstanding a partial A similar result occurred in Silas Mason Company v. Tax Commission of the State of Washington, 302 U.S.
Supreme Court, 186,58 S. p. C.T.
p.
233, 1937.
Here the United States was undertaking the construction of several dams on the Columbia River in Washington and had purchased the lands necessary for the project.
Cyrus Mason obtained a contract to build a part of the Grand Coulee Dam, but filed suit challenging the Washington income tax when that state sought to oppose that tax on the contract proceeds.
Mason's argument that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over both the lands and its contract was not upheld by either the Supreme Court of Washington or the United States Supreme Court.
The latter foretold that none of the lands owned by the United States were within its jurisdiction, and thus Washington clearly had jurisdiction to oppose the challenged tax.
See also Wilson v. Cox, 317 U.S.
Supreme Court, 474,66 S.C.T.
the United States Supreme Court, 474-66S.C.T.663-1946.
663, 1946.
Some two years later, in 1943, the Supreme Court was again presented with similar taxation
and jurisdiction issues.
The facts of these two cases were identical with the exception that one clearly involved land ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States.
This single difference caused directly opposite results in both cases.
In the question involved the applicability of state law to a contract entered into and
performed on a federal incline to which jurisdiction had this unit to the United States.
During World War II, California passed a law setting a minimum price for the sale of milk.
And this law imposed penalties for sales made below the regulated price.
Do you understand what I'm talking about here?
They're making rules of jurisdiction on things like buying the price of milk and today they're
putting people in prison where they clearly have no jurisdiction whatsoever for, you know,
things that are just incredible.
the world.
Here, Pacific Coast Dairy constimated a contract on Moffett Field, a federal enclave within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to sell milk to such a federal facility at below the regulated price.
When this occurred, California sought to impose a penalty for what it perceived as a violation of state law.
But the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to permit the enforcement of the California law, holding that the contract was made and performed in a territory outside the jurisdiction of California and within the jurisdiction of the United States, a place where this law did not apply.
Thus, in this case, the existence of federal jurisdiction was the foundation for the decision.
However, an opposite result was reached on almost identical facts.
Pennsylvania likewise had a law which regulated the price of milk and penalized milk sales below the regulated price.
During World War II, the United States leased some land from Pennsylvania for the construction of a military camp.
Who knows the answer to this already?
Leased?
It wasn't ceded.
Since the land was leased, Pennsylvania did not cede jurisdiction to the United States.
When ten dairies sold milk to the military facility for a price below the regulated price, the Commission sought to impose the penalty.
In this case, since there was no federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court found that the state law applied and permitted the imposition of the penalty.
These two cases clearly show the different results which can occur with the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction.
Really simple, easily researched facts.
Whether or not the state ceded the land to the federal government and did not retain limited jurisdiction, or did, in which case, you would have to find out what jurisdiction was reserved to the state.
Nothing difficult about it, is there?
A final point regarding federal jurisdiction concerns the question of when such jurisdiction ends or ceases.
This issue is considered in S.R.A.
v. Minnesota, 327 U.S.
Supreme Court 558, 563-64, 66 S.C.T.
Minnesota, 327 United States Supreme Court, 558 comma, 563 to 64, 66 S. period, C.T.
period, 749, 1946, which involved the power of the state to tax the real property interest
of a purchaser of lands sold by the United States.
Here a federal post office building was sold to SRA, pursuant to a real estate sale contract
which provided that title would pass, listen to this carefully, which provided that title
would pass only after the purchase price had been paid.
In rebutting the argument of SRA that the ad valerum tax on its equitable interest in
In rebuting the argument of SRA that the ad valorem tax on its equitable interest in the
the property was really an unlawful tax on United States property, the court held, quote,
property was really an unlawful tax on United States property, the court held, quote, in
in the absence of some provisions, a transfer of property held by the United States under
the absence of some provisions, a transfer of property held by the United States under
state sessions pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution would leave
state sections pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution would leave
numerous isolated islands of federal jurisdiction unless the unrestricted transfer of the property
to private hands is thought without more to revest sovereignty of the states. As the purpose
of Clause 17 was to give control over the sites of governmental operations to the United
States, when such control was deemed essential for federal activities, it would seem that
the sovereignty of the United States would end with the reason for its existence and
the disposition of the property. We shall treat this case as though the government's
unrestricted transfer of property to non-federal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive
legislative power, end quote.
Thus, when any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer
utilized by that government for governmental purposes and the title or any interest therein
is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases in jurisdiction
See Paul v. United States, 371, United States Supreme Court, 245, 83, S. period, C.T.
The principles regarding the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction continue today.
See Paul v. United States, 371, United States Supreme Court, 245, 83, S. period, C.P. period, 426, 1963.
And United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412, United States Supreme Court, 426, 1963.
Supreme Court, 363, comment 93, S. period, C.T.
period, 2183, 1973.
What was definitely decided in the beginning days of this republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government.
Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the states of the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its civilians long before now.
Can the federal government get together with officials of the state government and make an agreement that the federal government can have jurisdiction within a state over certain crimes of certain territory or certain property?
Absolutely not, it's unconstitutional.
Constitutional doesn't give them any right to do that.
In fact, it forbids states from entering into treaties.
No, we can't do it, not without amending the Constitution.
The federal government has restricted our powers which were granted to it and can have no other powers at all, regardless of the circumstances involved.
How about that?
A contract between the federal government and a state is a treaty.
That's what a treaty is.
A treaty is a contract between two foreign bodies.
Cannot.
It's unconstitutional.
It's a treaty.
Many treaties are entered into with special consideration.
You can follow the war.
You can give us $200 million in gold, we'll agree not to go over and squish your people.
It's a treaty.
Contract between states is a treaty.
Pure and simple.
The states are forbidden to enter into treaties.
So, the agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and the individual several states Are unconstitutional and unlawful.
The federal government cannot enter into the state to tax the citizens of the state's income.
Besides that, I don't think anybody has an income anyway.
You know what created the state income tax?
Based upon the Code of Federal Regulations Title 46.
Did you know that?
entered into between the federal government and the state, whereby the state agreed to
allow the federal government to require its employees who live within the several states
to file a pay income tax.
Did you know that?
It's the truth.
If the federal income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional and applied to the citizens
states, so is, by virtue of that agreement, the stating of that.
Since they use the same regulations anyway, they were not created or passed into law by the state legislature.
It's unconstitutional.
And I mean unconstitutional for the constitution of the state.
That's exactly what they did.
They piggybacked the federal regulations onto the state citizens.
In every state where there's a state income tax.
Why would it become law under carbon law if the cities are just more than seven years to become one?
No.
Because it's based upon a treaty which is unconstitutional.
Anything that's unconstitutional is null and void from its very inception.
Has no force of law.
Except with stupid sheeple loot.
Loot, anyway.
Right, Gary?
That's right.
Everybody understand?
Now, you go back and you try to tell people this, they're going to laugh at you.
They wouldn't do that if it was unconstitutional and true.
You know, that's what they said in Germany when Hitler came along.
He did all himself.
Lord, if it wasn't good for all of us, all of Germany, it's...
We may be Jews.
He's just doing this, you know, to get the crap off the streets.
Pretty soon everything's going to be fine, wasn't it?
Is it?
No.
They will do that, will they?
Thus, with any property, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the law,
is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes,
and the title or any interest therein is conveyed, the United States is no longer a state.
Thus, with any property, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,
is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes,
and the title or any interest therein is conveyed, To private interest, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the state.
So just because the federal government exercises and has lawful and constitutional jurisdiction over a piece of land, doesn't mean that it always has that jurisdiction over that piece of land.
In fact, some people might even argue that even if they didn't sell it to a private individual or concern, But just the fact that it is no longer serving a governmental purpose may relinquish federal jurisdiction, but that's something that the Supreme Court would have to decide.
But I know people put forth that argument.
These principles regarding the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction continue today.
The jurisdiction of the states is essentially the same as they possessed when they were leaked together under the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution didn't change a thing, neither has any case law or anything that has happened since.
There have been no amendments to the Constitution to change it, either.
The confederated states possess absolute—this is the way I say it—absolute That means without reservation, without challenge, without any hope of any kind of anybody else being able to come along and say, Hey, I got a piece of that action.
absolute, complete, and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their
borders.
It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these states, which had banished the centralized
power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of
Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation
Congress.
Thank you.
They did not, and they closely and jealously guarded their rights, powers, and jurisdiction,
just as I still do today, if people call me crazy and nuts.
When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the states was to
retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to
the United States of lands found essential for the operation of that government.
However, even this provision did not operate to instantly change any aspect of state jurisdiction.
yet only permitted its future operation, wherein each state, by its own volition, should choose
to cede jurisdiction to the United States.
By the adoption of the Constitution, the states jointly surrendered some seventeen specific
and well-defined powers to the Federal Congress, which related almost entirely to external
affairs of the states.
Did you hear what I said?
External affairs of the states, not only of the states.
Any single delegated power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion
so as to invade or difest a state of its jurisdiction.
As against a single state, the remainder of the states under the Constitution have no right to jurisdiction within the single state absent its consent.
The only provision in the Constitution which permits territorial jurisdiction to be vested
in the United States is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, which provides the mechanism
for a voluntary cession of jurisdiction from any state to the United States.
When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiction over no lands within
the states and it possessed jurisdiction only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest
Territories.
Shortly after formation of the Union, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United
States for Washington, D.C.
Over time, the states have ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the states.
Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and such territories and possessions which may now be owned by the United States.
These conclusions are buttressed by the opinion of the federal government itself.
In June 1957, the United States government published a work entitled, Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, a report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States.
Part 2, and this report, is the definitive study on this issue.
Therein the committee stated, and I quote, The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction.
Now did you hear what I just said?
Did you hear this admission?
Who heard what I said?
Who knows?
Who understands already?
Yes, yes.
You got it.
Did you hear what they said?
They admitted.
This is their own admission.
I didn't make this up.
This is their report.
They claim this is the definitive report.
Listen to this again.
You must learn to listen carefully and educate your brain to understand what is being said.
Because a lot of times what you think of being said isn't what is being said at all.
Okay?
It went right over most of your heads.
You didn't even hear it.
You didn't even hear it!
And it is a damning omission!
The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of federal acquisition of legislating jurisdiction.
Act of Congress?
Act of Congress has no authority or force of law within the states.
How about that?
How many of you are going around paying fees and getting licenses and obeying rules that
were made law by an act of Congress?
I'm going to read this again.
I may read it 20 times.
The Constitution gives express recognition of what one means of federal acquisition of
legislative jurisdiction.
By state consent under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, Justice McLean suggested that
the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction and that if this
mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."
Period.
Subject ended.
That's it.
Period.
People come to me and say, well, I don't know how you did it.
That you're going to jail.
They might kill me, folks, but I ain't going to jail.
Because I don't understand the law.
There's no authority to put me in jail.
If I go to jail, it'll be because I asked them to put me there.
99.9% of all people who are in jail are there because they volunteered to go.
go. Volunteered, and I'm not kidding. And the very real possibility that he might kill me,
that's why you see me wearing a gun all the time, and why we have a crusher.
you.
Which, by the way, for those of you who don't know Crusher, he's the dog over there, the black dog outside our cabin.
Don't mess with him, he will kill you.
If you mess with one of us and he's not on that chain, he will kill you, because that's what he's been trained to do.
I'm not telling you this to scare you.
I'm telling you this because you should know that so that you don't get hurt because you want to go pet the nice dog.
He's not a nice dog.
Quote, it scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction, one, pursuant to clause 17, by a federal acquisition of land with state consent, R2, by session from the state to the federal government, or unless the federal government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the state, the federal government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a state, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the state subject to non-interference by the state with federal functions."
The federal government cannot, this is another quote from the same rule, The federal government cannot, by unilateral action on its
part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a state."
End quote.
See, and you all thought that Congress could pass laws that you're supposed to obey, didn't
you?
On the other hand, while the federal government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define and prohibit as criminals certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes jurisdictions over which is retained by the states under our federal state system of government unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the federal government."
Which crimes are they talking about?
Who knows?
Treason, what else?
Piracy, what else?
What else?
That's about it, isn't it?
Or, laws governing what?
interstate commerce.
Follow the Constitution.
It's very easy to understand.
Anybody who has never read it needs to sit down and read it, and study it, and read it again, and study it again, and read it again, and again, and again, until you understand what it is you're reading.
Now, if you don't understand, or you think one of the definitions of one of the words might be different from what you understand it to be, there's only one dictionary by which you can derive the meaning, and that's the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.
And you can still get it, it's still published, because it defines the definition of the basis
of the law of the United States of America, and most of the States, by the way.
Because it was all written back then, and the definitions were different than they are
today.
So, if some student of subversive tells you that the Constitution was written over 200
years ago, my daughter and both him, who do not understand the complexity of the modern
age and it's outdated, they'll go back to school, get a dictionary, and throw the blanky-blank up.
That's true. That's right there, quote-unquote.
Yes, sir.
I'm not sure if you got it correctly, I don't see it.
No, somebody said it.
Oh, you're not sure?
Yeah. Piracy. Guess what?
This is.
Yeah.
Piracy.
Guess what?
No state can pass any law which by very nature contradicts the Constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Any law passed by a state must conform to the restrictions of the Constitution.
Gun legislation whatsoever is unconstitutional.
There's only many accepted because the people are foolish enough to allow it to happen.
A militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
What is so hard to understand about that?
What is it about shall not be in French that is so difficult for people to understand?
It means what it says.
Anybody that comes and tries to take my guns from me will get them turned in one bullet at a time until I'm out of bullets and then they can have my guns.
And I mean it.
Anybody in your life that means it as much as I do.
I would rather be dead than enslaved, because death is the ultimate freedom.
It is released from entrapment in this terrible, confining body.
My spirit will be able to soar back to the Creator, and I will have the ultimate freedom,
while everybody else who is afraid to die and afraid to claim their freedom are still
down here enslaved in their own body first, and under their government second.
Most people don't understand that.
Probably never will.
But I understand it, and that's the only person who needs to.
Thus, from a wealth of case law, in addition to this lengthy and definitive government
treatise, the jurisdiction of the United States is identified as a very precise and carefully
defined portion of America.
The United States is one of the 50 jurisdictions existing on this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces.
And, is that correct?
No.
There's 51 jurisdictions.
There's 50 states and the federal government.
If you had a typo, or Larry wrote this one, we had 49 states.
Let me see here.
Yes, so he's right.
The United States is one of the 50 jurisdictions existing on this continent, excluding Canada and its provinces.
He is correct.
So why is that a problem?
Federal criminal jurisdiction.
Thought we were done, didn't you?
It is a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears.
Then it's fine as long as it's case law.
I'm not going to go through all that because it's a bunch.
It's a whole bunch, okay?
And I know you're not all going to catch it for anything.
But at the end of all these case laws it says, where the court declared,
which means it declared the same thing in all these different cases
that I could have but did not read off here.
Quote, the laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.
End quote.
As well as express statutory language, the federal drug laws operate extra-territorially.
See United States v. King, 552F, period 2d 833,851, 9th Circuit, 1976.
The United States has territorial jurisdiction only in Washington, D.C.
The federal enclaves within the states and the territories and insular possessions of the United States.
However, it has no territorial jurisdiction over non-federally owned areas inside the territorial jurisdiction of the states within the American Union and this proposition of law supported by literally hundreds of cases.
As a general rule, the power of the United States to criminally prosecute is, for the most part, confined to offenses committed within its jurisdiction.
In the absence of treaties, This is borne out simply by examination of 18 United States Code, Section 5, which defines the term United States in clear jurisdictional terms.
To further, Section 7 of that federal criminal code contains the fullest statutory definition of the jurisdiction of the United States.
The United States just reports that jurisdiction of offices occurring within the, quote, United
States, end quote, pursuant to 18 United States codes, section 3231.
Examples of this proposition are numerous.
In Faudier v. Rodman, 291F, period 311, 1st Circuit, 1923, the question involved whether
a murder committed at Camp Lewis Military Reservation in the state of Washington was
a federal crime.
There, the murder was committed more than a year before the United States acquired a
deed for the property, which was the scene of the crime.
Faudier was arrested and incarcerated in Rhode Island and filed a habeas corpus petition
seeking his release on the grounds that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over this
audience not committed in United States jurisdiction.
The 1st Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction that ordered his release, but
on appeal to the United States Supreme Court in Rodman v. Faudier, 264 United States Supreme
Court 399, 44S, period CT, period 360, 1924, that court reversed.
Although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enumerated by the 1st Circuit,
it held that only the federal court in Washington state could decide that issue.
2nd, 750, 8th Circuit Court, 1929, the 8th Circuit held that the United States had no jurisdiction over a murder committed in a railroad car at Fort Robinson, the state statute being construed as not including railroad rights of way.
This decision was reversed in The court holding that the United States did have jurisdiction over the railroad rights-of-way in Fort Robinson, in Bowen v. Johnson, 97, F. Second, 860, 9th Circuit, 1938, the question presented was whether the lack of jurisdiction over an offense prosecuted in federal court could be raised in a habeas corpus petition.
The denial of balance petition was reversed in The court concluding that such a jurisdictional challenge could be raised via such a petition.
But the court then addressed the issue, found that the United States both owned the property in question and had a state legislative grant ceding jurisdiction to the United States.
Thus, there were jurisdictions in the United States to prosecute Bowen.
But if jurisdiction is not vested in the United States pursuant to statute, there is no jurisdiction.
The only one in which it was reversed, which might appear that the end jurisdiction really is, was when the court said that he had petitioned the wrong United States District Court, that only the United States District Court in the state of Washington could decide the issue, and the Supreme Court did not decide the issue.
The lower federal courts also require the presence of federal jurisdiction in criminal prosecutions.
In Kelly v. United States, 27 S.
616 D. Maine, 1885, federal jurisdiction of a manslaughter committed at Fort Tottenham was upheld when it was shown that the United States owned the property where the offense occurred and the state had ceded jurisdiction.
In United States v. Ando, 158, F996D, New Jersey, 1908, federal jurisdiction for a forgery offense was upheld by showing that the United States owned the property where the offense was committed, and the state had ceded jurisdiction of the property to the United States.
In United States v. Penn, 48F669ED, Virginia, 1880, since the U.S.
did not have jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery, A federal larceny prosecution was dismissed.
How many of you didn't know that the United States does not have jurisdiction over our national cemetery?
See, just because it may serve a government function does not mean that the government has jurisdiction.
It depends upon what?
whether the land was ceded by the state to the government.
Not the building, not the airspace, the land was ceded.
Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out.
Thank you.
And then we go to the, I mean, just cite it, just cite it, just cite it, just cite it.
Corollary.
Excuse me.
A conviction for receiving stolen property was reversed when the court reviewed the record and learned that there was absolutely no evidence disposing that the defendant had committed this offense within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The United States versus Vincent, 495 F, 2 D, 475, comma, 481, 5th Circuit, 1974.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
There's only about seven or eight minutes left in the lecture.
And it's all the same.
The conclusion ends with modern-day court cases, which you're not going to hear, but you can research for yourself, where the Supreme Court held exactly the same decisions that you've been hearing all during yesterday's broadcast and today's broadcast.
Now, to give you some indication, That the Constitution may no longer be enforced.
That you may be laboring under a misconception that the nation exists to which you believed that you belong.
The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and don't get me wrong, folks, I'm not sticking up for Perry Nichols or Mr. McVeigh.
They certainly were involved in blowing up that building.
But our investigation shows that they were patsies, but it doesn't make any difference.
Any degree of guilt in such a thing is guilt.
What I'm getting at is what happened to those two men is unconstitutional.
You see, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building sat upon land which was never ceded by the legislature of the state of Oklahoma to the federal government.
And the Constitution for the United States, ladies and gentlemen, is very clear.
In Article 3, Section 4, Paragraph 3, it clearly states, The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trials shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.
But when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Congress did not direct.
It was in the state of Oklahoma, the land upon which the federal building sat, was not ceded by the legislature of the state of Oklahoma to the federal government.
But the federal government took jurisdiction unlawfully, unconstitutionally, and moved the trial to Colorado.
Depriving the citizens of the state of Oklahoma of their jurisdiction and their justice.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Good night, ladies and gentlemen.
I wish you could have attended our conference.
Remember, that's only barely, that's only about what you've heard an hour and a half so far of a whole week's Lectures and activities.
Good night, and God bless each and every single one of you.
♪♪♪ Ladies and gentlemen, we have been lied to and deceived
repeatedly over and over again.
What is rightfully ours has been stolen from us by those that we have elected to public office and trusted, and by those bureaucrats who get into office Hold positions where they can appoint or hire people below them and have brought in those who have the same agenda as them over many years' time.
The United States of America, as it was conceived and implemented by the Founders, no longer exists.
Get a copy of the Constitution for the United States of America.
Read it.
Study it.
Learn it.
Until you understand what has happened.
And then get off your lazy ass and do something about it.
And if you're not willing to do that, then stop bitching and complaining and whining.
Reach down and put the chains around your ankles and march off into the New World Order without complaint.
At least be honest with yourselves.
stand up as Americans and fight this tyranny, or bend your back and bow down to your new
masters and submit to your slavery.
You've been listening to the Hour of the Time.
I I'm William Cooper.
♪♪ ♪♪
♪♪ ♪♪
▲
Export Selection