Chating The End You are 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 Thunderhorse 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. Mill, 36, United States 11, 102, 1837, a question before the court involves 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. The court held. Quote, End quote. End quote. And again, quote, same court group. They are these, that a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things which any spirit are in limits, and any foreign nation where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. Do you realize what they said? This rogue federal agent who is committing criminal acts within the paratorial 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? Does that mean justice? No, I don't know. What happened? Anybody turn in there to also be there? Yeah, we have. Oh, my God. You think you guys are not successful with the electrical connections, please? It's always Bob. I know. I know. Whenever somebody comes to tell 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. But that by virtue of this, happiness and prosperity of its people that we 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 are 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 why, 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 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 of my point where somebody asking to write a column for a newspaper and 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. 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. Should we hear of a U.S. patent? How many of you have a U.S. patent on your property? Nobody? Yeah? Would you explain to them what a U.S. patent is? You're talking about the land patent? Mm-hmm. I had heard about a lot of this stuff. And what I had done, I sent the instrument that I sent the land patent. I called it $2.68 to get to serve by the cotton. Now, I haven't followed through all the way, but the land patent was 160 acres and all I had to do was pull my car out of that 160 acres and this would be clear below your title. And no one had prayed for it. In fact, what I did, I went one step further. I went down to the bank. I told them I'm getting a little bit of title on my property. I said, well, you're giving your loan on me. He said, probably not. You know why? Because he can't foreclose on it. Because if he 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? So why is the Supreme Court really good? Look it up yourself. I'm going to give you the status. 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 the 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, end quote. How many of you have been told there's no common law? How many of you have heard Dan Rather Not from television talk about the Looney Tunes 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? The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be which sets forth the law as point fully. 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 city. 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 of political jurisdiction and domination where lands are acquired without such consent. The possession of the possession of the United States unless political jurisdiction be seated 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. Exquisite jurisdiction. Exquisite 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, henceforth. Boy, have they pulled the wool over our eyes or what? Thus the cases decided within the 19th century clearly disclosed 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 co-extensive with its borders or territory and all persons and property located are 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 session of jurisdiction by the state to the federal government. Therefore federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington D.C. the federal inclines within the states and the territories and 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 cessions 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 cession 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 the state of the state of the federal government. the 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 in it. 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 versus cook. 281 United States Supreme Court 647 comma 50. the state. That's period ceded. 455 1930. Here a state attempt to assess and add the war tax to it 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 of the federal government the court held quote. The state undoubtedly may ceded jurisdiction to the United States and may make the session either absolute or qualified as to her may appear desirable. Provided the 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? How could they rule otherwise? 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 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 the federal government the state reserves the right of limited jurisdiction and makes that a contractual reservation in ceding the land of the United States. And 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 land ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. In James versus Drago contracting company 302 United States Supreme Court 134 comma 58 S period CT period 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 in 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 versus tax commission of the state of Washington 302 United States Supreme Court 186 comma 58 S period CT period 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. 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 impose 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 court held 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 versus Cox 327 United States Supreme Court 474 comma 66 S period CT period 663 1946. Some two years later in 1943 the Supreme Court was again presented with similar taxation and jurisdiction issues. The facts in these two cases were identical with the exception that one clearly involved lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. This single difference caused directly opposite results in both cases. N the question involved the applicability of state law to a contract entered into and performed on a federal incline 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 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 rulings of jurisdiction on things called buying the price of milk and today they're putting people in prison where they clearly have no jurisdiction whatsoever. For, you know, things are just incredible. Here Pacific Cove Dairy consummated a contract on Moppet 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 an opposite result was reached on almost identical facts. Here, 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. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Rooms. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Leased. Le Silo. Leinas. Le вик. Le Chili. Le Square. Le io. Le Tymo. Le almond. Rffen. Lec. Cosa. Le seller. Le Du. Le Den. Le. Lelection. Leอะไร. 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 it a final point regarding federal jurisdiction concerns the question of when such jurisdiction ends or ceases this issue was considered in SRA versus Minnesota 327 United States Supreme Court 558, 563-64 66 S.C.T. 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 rebuting 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 that court held quote in the absence of some provisions a transfer of property held by the United States under state sessions pursuant to article one section eight cloud seventeen 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 seventeen 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 and jurisdiction once again reverts to the state the above principles regarding the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction continue today see Paul versus United States 371 United States Supreme Court 245 comma 83 S period CT period 426 1963 and United States versus State Tax Commission of Mississippi 412 United States Supreme Court 363 comma 93 S period CT 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 and the United States our federal government would have surely met its demise 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 or certain territory or certain property absolutely not it's unconstitutional constitutional doesn't give them any right to do that the fact it forbids states from entering into treaties no we can't do it not without amending the Constitution the federal government is restricted to our powers which were granted to it and can have no other powers regardless of the circumstances involved how about that how about that can they do another contract pardon can they enter into a contract no a contract between the federal government and a state is a treaty that's what a treaty is treaty is a contract between two foreign bodies even if they trade any kind of money cannot it's unconstitutional it's a treaty many treaties are entered into with special considerations usually following war you give us two hundred million dollars in gold we'll agree not to go over and squish your people yeah 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 know anybody that has an income anyway you know what created the state income tax? based upon the code of federal regulations title 46 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 with the state's income the state's income tax the federal income tax is unlawful and unconstitutional when applied to the citizens of the states so is by virtue of that agreement the state income tax since they use 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 that's exactly what they did they piggybacked the federal regulations on to the state citizens in every state where there's a state income tax why would it become law under common law if it exists for 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 who do it anyway right Gary? that's right does everybody understand? now you go back and you try to tell people this they go laugh at you they wouldn't do that if it was unconstitutional sure sure that's what he said in Germany when Hitler came along he did all his stuff well, Hitler wouldn't do it if it wasn't good for all of us all of Germany we may be Jews he's just doing this you know to get the crap off the streets pretty soon everything's gonna be fine will it? is it? no they wouldn't do that would it? good does it? does it? 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 government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverses to the state. So just because the federal government exercises and has lawfully 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 are concerned 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 put forth that argument. These principles regarding the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction continue today. In summary, 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 what I said. Absolute. That means without reservation, without challenge, without any hope of any kind of anybody else. Being able to come along and say, hey, 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. They did not, and they closely and jealously guarded their own 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 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 any 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 within the states. Any single delegated power, or even several powers combined, do not operate in a fashion so as to evade 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 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary session 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 the 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 to 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 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 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, yes. You got it. You got it. 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. Report. Listen to this 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 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 are going 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. I'm going to read it 20 times. люди are going to read it 20 times. FYI... I'll read it 20 times. I'll read it 20 times later as they say totals get period. People come to me and say, well, I don't know how you did in that you're going to jail. They might kill these folks, but I ain't going to jail. because I know and understand the law. They have 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 that he might kill me is why you see me wearing a gun all the time and why we have Crusher. 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. And 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 is scary. 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 federal acquisition of land with state consent, or two, by cession 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. End quote. The federal government cannot, this is another quote from the same room, 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? Quote, On the other hand, while the federal government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define and prohibit as criminal 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. End quote. Which crimes are they talking about? Who knows? Treason. Treason. What else? Piracy. Piracy. What else? Counterfeiting. What else? That's about it, isn't it? Or? Laws governing what? Interstate commerce. It's all in the Constitution. It's very easy to understand. Anybody who has never read it, Nisa said, ever not, you read it, you study it, you read it again, you study it again, you 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 stupid subversive tells you that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, my daughter, and I did not understand the complexity of the modern age, and it's outdated, tell her to go back to school, get a dictionary, and throw the plankety-pony cup. Yes, sir. No, somebody said it. Yeah. Piracy. Yes, sir. Right now, the state laws are passed routinely, like in California, there's a full law in one week. No state can pass any law which by very nature contradicts the Constitution with 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. Any gun legislation whatsoever is unconstitutional. It has only been 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 infringed 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 gun. And I mean it. You never met 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 the trample 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 who else is afraid to die and afraid to claim their freedom are still down here and swayed in their own body first and under their governance second. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Most people don't understand that. Probably never will. But I understand it and that's the only person that 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 in the federal government it's either a typo or Larry wrote this one we have 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 Hawaii is not over 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 cites all this 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 right at the end but at the end of all these case laws it says where the court declared which means it declared the same thing in all of 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 but because of treaties as well as express statutory language the federal drug laws operate extra-territorially see United States vs. 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 insure 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 in its reports have jurisdiction of offenses occurring within the quote United States end quote pursuant to 18 United States Codes Section 3231 examples of this proposition are numerous in Poggey v. Rodman 291F period 311 First Circuit 1923 the question involved whether a murder committed at Camp Lewis military reservation in the state of Washington was a federal crime here 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 Poggey 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 offense not committed in United States jurisdiction the First Circuit agreed that there was no federal jurisdiction that ordered his release but on appeal to the United States Supreme Court of Rodman v. Poggey 264 United States Supreme Court 399 comma 44 S period C.T. period 360 1924 that court reversed although agreeing with the jurisdictional principles enumerated by the First Circuit it held that only the federal court in Washington state could decide that issue in United States versus Yuzuka 35F 2nd 750 8th Circuit Court 1929 the 8th Circuit held that the United States had no jurisdiction over a murder committed a railroad car at Fort Robinson the state session statute being construed as not including railroad rights of Woodick 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 97F 2nd 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 Bowen's 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 exceeding jurisdiction in the United States thus there were jurisdiction 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 which it was reversed which might appear that they had jurisdiction where they did 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 versus United States 27F 616 D Maine 19 excuse me 1885 federal jurisdiction of a manslaughter committed at Fort Popham was upheld when it was shown that the United States owned the property where the offense occurred and the state had ceded jurisdiction over Arlington National State in the United States in the United States in the United States versus Penn 48F 669ED 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 did not have jurisdiction over Arlington 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 and go I mean just side after side after side after side quote excuse me a conviction for receiving stolen property was reversed when the court reviewed the record and learned that there was absolutely no evidence disclosing that the defendant had committed this offense within the jurisdiction of the United States in United States versus Benson 495F 2D 475 Compton Compton Compton 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. Muir Federal Building in Oklahoma City and don't get me wrong folks I'm not sticking up for Terry 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 thing is guilt what I'm getting at is what happened to those two men is unconstitutional you see the Alfred P. Muir 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 three section four paragraph three 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 crime shall have been committed but when not committed within any state the trial shall be at such place or 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 buildings set 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 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 either 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'm William Cooper a second for what he said to your the feu Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.