All Episodes
July 1, 1998 - Bill Cooper
58:59
Federal Jurisdiction #2 – William Cooper
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You're listening to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
Well, it's official, ladies and gentlemen.
We just got a call from a reporter from Channel 5 News in Phoenix.
The court has issued a bench warrant for the arrest of myself and my wife.
We are ready to resist with ever whatever Force is necessary should they come up here and attempt to arrest us for any reason whatsoever.
And if you listened to the broadcast the day before yesterday, and if you continue listening today, you're going to eventually arrive at the conclusion that we're in the right and they're in the wrong.
Unless you're just going to back up the government no matter what, my country right or wrong, just like Hitler's SS stormtroopers did.
Remember the excuses they gave at Nuremberg for murdering all those people?
Oh, they were just backing their government, just following orders, just doing what they were supposed to do as good little Nazi German citizens.
Not me, folks.
I have spent my time stupid.
I went to fight a war in Vietnam that had nothing to do with freedom or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or anything that we hold dear in this country, although I thought I was at the time.
Now I'm really fighting for freedom in this country.
It makes me feel damn good.
So, uh, make sure you take notes, listen closely.
We'll continue with the lecture on federal jurisdiction that we did, or that I did, I should say, on May 25th from the material provided by Attorney Larry Becraft Many others and, of course, a lot of my research.
And it's all backed up, documented with court cases, and I've sent an entire brief to Sheriff Hart Lee, who, by the way, called the FBI and told them they weren't welcome to come in this county and harass this family.
And I understand at least one other significant-ranking law enforcement person in this county has done the same thing.
So to Sheriff Lee and whoever else is helping us out, however large or small that help may be, I
thank you.
I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your patience.
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,
I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your patience.
excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded to the United
States.
Incurable possession 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 in reports, 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, however 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 seceded, ceded to
the United States.
Not just jurisdiction, but exclusive 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 ability jurisdiction.
In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as much.
The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dockyards ceded to them 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, 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 section of territory or 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 courts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other meaningful buildings.
It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation, which is jurisdiction, is united
with session 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 upon them that, in describing the judicial power,
the framers of our Constitution had not in view any section of territory or, which is
essentially the same, of general jurisdiction."
End quote.
The ship upon which the crime was committed was seen in the harbor.
you Which have 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?
The state had no authority, the federal government would try to put the person to crime, and
nobody would even challenge it because nobody understands it.
How do you use the term, how bad would the regulation be?
Again, all the regulations they want, but regulations do not apply when they are unconstitutional.
They are not enforceable, and no lawful standing, period.
Any law which is an unconstitutional law is null and void upon its very implementation.
The court in Bevis 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.
Thank you.
To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent, and meaning of the entire United States Constitution.
The decision in Bevins 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.
302,309, 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 deciding 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 erecting courts.
The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states.
Of all territory within their limits, not ceded to or purchased by Congress with the
SM of the state legislature to prevent the collusion 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
court.
In Peeble 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 for bid, do you understand?
Therefore, in a scam job like this, 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 relied in the United States versus Bevins
Syndrome.
At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar
fact 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 the United States versus Cornell, 25.
14867, c.c.d.r.i.1819, the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction.
1867, c.c.d.r.i.1819, the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction.
Quote, But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for public purposes
within the territorial limits of the state, this does not itself oust the jurisdiction
of sovereignty of such state over the lands so purchased.
It remains as though the state has relinquished its authority over the land, either expressly
or by necessary implication.
Quote, When, therefore, a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national
government and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased
by the very terms of the Constitution, ipso facto, falls within the exclusive legislation
of the state, and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted.
End quote.
Almost 18 years later, the United States Supreme Court was again presented with a case involving
the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction.
In New Orleans v. United States, 35, United States Supreme Court, 10-10, 662,737, 1836,
the United States claims title to property in New Orleans, likewise claimed by the city.
After holding that title to the subject lands was owned by the city, the court addressed the question of federal jurisdiction.
Quote, Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works, and it is only in these places are in the territories of the United States where it can
exercise a general jurisdiction."
End quote.
Now, listen to what it says.
"...are in the territories of the United States where it can exercise a general jurisdiction."
You know why people allow United States Marshals to come and do their work within a state,
or to come and arrest a citizen of a state?
Because we were all brainwashed that they have the authority to go anywhere and do anything
by the tales and the stories and the history of the old Marshals in the territory of the
West.
What do we see in movies?
Why on earth?
The United States Marshal.
Don't you get your boy.
Hang on, Marshal!
Draw, you villain.
Right?
And so, we don't think twice when the United States Marshal comes to our door and serves us with a paper, or arrests us, or carts off our property, or levies, or seizes, or anything else.
Do they have the right to do that?
Can they do it?
No, not if you know the law and understand it.
You can throw the sucker in prison, because he's operating under the color of law, as in our law, outside the law.
He is breaking the law, or she is, in this case.
They're criminals!
Now, they don't know that, because they were hired to do a job.
When they got hired to do the job, did somebody give them a constitution and set it down to teach them this stuff?
No.
They set it down and told them what they wanted to do, and said that if they didn't do it, they'd get poor performance marks, or they'd be fired.
Right?
And so, these poor fools are just like the rest of us poor fools.
They're just fooling around being manipulated to minimize against their fellow citizens
because they think they're doing a good job.
And when you question what they're doing, they think they're good enough.
Because their supervisor would never tell them to do something unlawful, would they?
Would they?
No.
No sir, they wouldn't do that, would they?
No sir.
No.
In New York versus New Orleans, 36th United States Supreme Court.
I gotta pause here and change the tape.
Let's take a five minute break, guys.
The question before the court involved an attempt by the city of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report regarding the persons his ship brought to New York, as against the master's contention that the act was unquestionable, unconstitutional, and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter.
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 on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction."
End quote.
And again, quote, same courtroom.
They are these, that a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over
all persons and things within its territorial limits.
And any foreign nation where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution
of the United States...
Do you realize what this is?
This rogue federal agent who has committed criminal acts within the territorial jurisdiction
of the state is what?
A high-born man.
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.
He's under state jurisdiction.
That's incredible, isn't it?
Are these speakers working?
Huh?
Doesn't sound like it, does it?
Testing, testing.
Anybody catch anything off of it?
You guys not mess with the electrical connections, please?
I'm going to pass over the electrical connections, please.
Sorry.
It's always Bob.
Sorry Bob.
The time is good for somebody.
I know.
I'm going to pass over the electrical connections, please.
Sorry.
It's always Bob.
Sorry Bob.
The time is good for somebody.
I know.
I'm going to pass over the electrical connections, please.
Sorry Bob.
The time is good for somebody.
I know.
I'm going to do good for somebody.
Whenever somebody comes and tells me they're going to do something for my own good, I run as fast as I can.
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, That 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 a 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's 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.
Because there's no proof that she is.
I can tell you this, I would want her to be.
Because I know her.
So, what's your job?
Bye.
Educate your Sharon.
I've educated mine.
To the point where when somebody asks him to write a column for a newspaper, he brings it over to me and I write it.
I write our stories.
So many years later, and the question of federal jurisdiction was once again
before the court.
Thank you.
This case involved a real property title dispute with one of the parties claiming a right to the contested property via a U.S.
patent.
If you're in Europe, a U.S.
patent.
How many of you have a U.S.
patent 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 this stuff.
What I've done is I sent a solicitor a bill, and I was going to go ahead and patent it.
It cost me $2.68 to get two certified copies.
Now, I haven't followed through all the way, but the land patent says it's 160 acres, and all I had to do was pull my car out of that 160 acres, and it was going to be clear for holding the 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 tell you what you can build or can't build on it.
They can't zone it.
You know why? Because of your fault. 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 science.
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 a 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-Knot on television talk about the only ten 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-Knot knows anything at all?
Wow.
The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be which sets forth the law in this point bullet.
Here, the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by Kansas.
And the company claimed an exemption from state taxation because its property was within federal jurisdiction and outside of that state.
In holding that the railroad company's property could be taxed, the court carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the states.
Quote, 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 A 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 no special status and they're subject to the jurisdiction of the state.
A splendid 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
quick.
you Boy, did they pull the wool over our eyes or what?
Thus the case is decided within the 19th century clearly discloses the extent and scope of
both state and federal jurisdiction.
Please.
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.
Federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States.
Period.
If our 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 sanctions 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 enclaves 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 same 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.
They have 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 property ceded to the federal government was Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, 281 U.S.
Supreme Court, 647, 50 S. p. C.T.
p.
455, 1930.
Here, a state attempt to assess and add ballora tax to 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 ballora tax 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 cession of land and contracting limited jurisdiction must stand or the right of contract can't stand.
And since it's a constitutional right, it's going to stand.
So, if in ceding property to federal government, the state reserves the right of limited jurisdiction
and makes that a contractual reservation in ceding the land to the United States, and
the United States accepts that reservation as a part of the contract, it becomes law.
The two cases decided in 1937 by the United States Supreme Court further clarify the constitutionality
of a reservation of partial state jurisdiction over land ceded to the jurisdiction of the
United States.
In James v. Drabo Contracting Company, 302 U.S.
Supreme Court, 134,58 S. CT.
the United States Supreme Court, 134,58 S. CT. 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 to build some 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 had 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 session of
jurisdiction to the United States.
A similar result occurred in Silas Mason Company v. Tax Commission of the State of Washington, 302 U.S.
Supreme Court, 186,58 S. period, C.T.
United States Supreme Court, 186, 58, S. period of CT, period 233, 1937.
Here the United States was undertaking the construction of several dams of the Columbia
River in Washington and had purchased the lands necessary for the project.
Silas 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 has jurisdiction to oppose the challenge to tax.
See also Wilson v. Cox, 327, United States Supreme Court, 474,66 S. period, C.T. period, 66, grade 1946.
So, 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 enclave to which jurisdiction had been ceded to the United States.
During World War II, California passed a law setting a minimum price for the sale of And this law imposed penalties for sales made below the regulated price.
Do you understand what I'm talking about here?
They're making rulings 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.
Here, Pacific Coast Dairy consummated a contract with 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, in it, an opposite result was reached on almost identical backs.
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?
It's leased.
It was leased.
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.
And it's based upon one really simple, easily researched act.
Whether or not the state sealed 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.
Peace.
This issue was considered in S.R.A.
v. Minnesota, 327 U.S.
Supreme Court 558, 563-64, 66 S.C.
of 327 United States Supreme Court 558,563-64, 66, Test Period, CT 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 refuting the argument of SRA that the ad valerem tax on its equitable interest in the
In refuting the argument of SRA that the ad valerum tax on its equitable interest in the
property was really an unlawful tax on United States property, the court held, quote, in
property was really an unlawful tax on the United States property, the court held, quote,
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 fought 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.
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.T. period, 426,
1963. And the United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412, United States Supreme
Court, 363, 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
and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its amnesia for
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 or certain territory or certain property?
Absolutely not in such a constitution.
Constitutional doesn't give them any right to do that.
that, the fact that it forbids states from entering into treaties.
No, they can't do it, not without amending the Constitution.
The federal government is restricted from powers which were granted to it and can have no other powers for it, regardless of the circumstances involved.
How about that?
Q. Can they do it under contract?
A. Pardon?
Q. Can they enter into a contract?
A. No, 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.
Q. Even if they can't make that money?
A. Cannot.
It's unconstitutional.
one is a treason.
Being treason, I enter it into with special considerations.
You've been following war.
You give us $200 million in gold, we'll agree to nothing over it and squish your people.
So, 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 know anybody that has the income anyway.
You know what created the state income tax?
based upon the Code of Federal Regulations Title 26, an agreement 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
of the states, so is, by virtue of that agreement, the state income tax.
Since they used the same regulations anyway, and it was they were not created or passed
into law by the state legislature, it's unconstitutional.
And I mean unconstitutional from the Constitution of the state.
They're taking that back.
That's exactly what they did.
They're taking back the federal regulations onto the state citizens in every state with
a state income tax.
Why would it become law or become unlawful if it existed for more than seven years and
become unlawful?
Oh, Jesus.
No, because it's based upon a treaty which is unconstitutional.
Anything that's unconstitutional is null and void from its very inception as no force of law, except the super-cheap will do it anyway.
Right, Gary?
Does everybody understand?
Now, you go back and you try to tell people this, they're going to laugh at you and say, well, they wouldn't do that if it was unconstitutional.
Sure.
Yeah, that's what they said in Germany when Hitler came along and did all his stuff.
Well, I heard Hitler wouldn't do it if it wasn't good for all of us, all of Germany, We may be Jews, and he's just doing this, you know, to get crime off the streets, and pretty soon everything's going to be fine.
Was it?
Is it?
No.
They wouldn't do that, would they?
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 the jurisdiction
and 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 that 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 look for it that argue.
These principles regarding the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction continue
In summary, the jurisdiction of the states is essentially the same as they possessed when they were linked 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 possessed 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.
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.
They did not, and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers, and jurisdiction,
just as I still do today, being called 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.
It 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 17 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 divest 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 a seated jurisdiction to federal employees 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, report of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States.
Part two in 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 legislating 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, you?
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 is 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 legislative jurisdiction.
Act of Congress?
Act of Congress has no authority or force of law within the states.
How about that?
How many of you have gone around paying fees and getting licenses and obeying rules that
were made law by 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 legislating 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're going to do it, man, but you're
going to jail.
I say, I'm not 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.
Volunteered, and I'm not kidding.
And the very real possibility they might kill me is why you see me wearing a gun all the time, and why we have crushing.
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.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's it for today's broadcast.
In case you didn't catch the beginning of the broadcast, Federal District Court Judge Irwin today in Phoenix, Arizona, issued a bench warrant for the arrest of me, William Cooper, and my wife, Annie Cooper, because we did not show up in his courtroom on a summons that was never served upon us.
His bench warrant is unconstitutional, unlawful, and illegal.
Federal courts disobey the law all the time.
Not only that, the United States District Court has no jurisdiction within the territorial boundaries of the state of Arizona over any of the person's properties or business within those boundaries except on land ceded by the state legislature to the federal government.
Good night, folks.
We'll be right here.
Should anybody come and attempt to arrest us, we will use whatever force necessary to defeat them and to prevail.
We are the constitutional, constituted, unorganized militia, and we will enforce the laws of the Union.
Good night, and God bless each and every single one of you.
the the
101.1 FM is your community service, non-profit radio station.
While we're standing here fighting for freedom, fighting in defense of the Constitution, and for all of the rights of the American citizens, what are you doing for your community?
Export Selection