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 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've 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, 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 Hartley, 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. Thank you. Thank you. ...have had many opportunities to construe and apply this clause of the Constitution. the essence of all these decisions manifests a legal principle that the states of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded to the United States concur in the session will be derived from the whole people of the state in their adoption of the Constitution every imaginable objection seems to be obviated the necessity of a like 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 sprinkles are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the states concerned in every such establishment in quote 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 manifest a legal principle that the states of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded 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 admiralty jurisdiction in argument before the Supreme Court counsel for the United States admitted as much quote 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 end quote in holding that the state of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over this crime the court held quote what then is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses we answer without hesitation the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory co-extensive with its legislating power the article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the session of territory or of general jurisdiction congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts 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 sitting in the harbor which had not been ceded by the legislature of the state of Massachusetts to the United States of America does everybody understand that? and what would they do today? they say the state had no authority the federal government would try to first look for the crime and nobody would even challenge it because nobody understands it they can have all the regulations they want but regulations do not apply when they are unconstitutional or not enforceable have no lawful standing period any law which is an unconstitutional law is null and void upon its very implementation the court in Beavins thus established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction to hold otherwise would destroy the purpose and intent and meaning of the entire United States Constitution the decision in Beavins was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years in Commonwealth v. Young Brightley in B. 302 Common 309 Pennsylvania 1818 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law in 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 cessions 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 ascent of the state legislature to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states end quote 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 fort in People v. Godfrey 17 Johns 225,223 New York 1819 that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the state since the lands therefore had not been ceded to the United States for people do you understand they're pulling a scam job on us big time quote to oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws and to punish crimes it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States and 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 in which it is committed which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state the decisional authority upon which this court relied was United States versus Bevin this Supra 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 United States versus Cornell 25 Fed case 646-648 number 14867 C period C period D period R period I period 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 in itself house the jurisdiction of sovereignty of such state over the lands so purchased it remains until 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 if so facto falls within the exclusive legislation of congress 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 and New Orleans versus United States 35 United States Supreme Court 10 6-6-2-7-3-7 18-36 the United States claims title to property in New Orleans likewise claimed by the city after holding the 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 or in the territories of the United States where it can exercise a general jurisdiction end quote you know why people allow United States marshals to come and do their work within the state or to come and arrest citizens of the state because we were all brainwashed that they have the authority to go anywhere to do anything by the tales and the stories and the history of the old marshals in the territorial west when we see the movies why at earth United States Marshal don't you get your boy hang on marshal draw are you villain right that's why we don't take twice when the United States Marshal comes to our service with a paper or arrests us or parts 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 an outlaw outside the law he is breaking the law or she is the 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 sit down and teach them this stuff no they sat them down 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 going around being manipulated committing crimes against their fellow citizens because they think they're doing their job and when you question what they're doing they think you're up because their supervisor would never tell them to do something unlawful would they would they no sir they wouldn't do that would they in new york versus middle 36 united states supreme court i gotta pause here and change the tape let's take a five minute break guys tape 11 pat 102 1837 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 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 on whom it operates he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction end quote and again quote same court ruler they are these that a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territory limits as 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 test test test what happened anybody know anything awful with yes oh god you guys not the electrical connections with sorry it's always bob 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 gun 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 is the sheriff he's Joe both citizens 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 her 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 somebody asked him 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 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 how many of you have a U.S. patent on your property nobody would you explain to them what a U.S. patent is talking about the land patent I heard about a lot of this stuff and what I had done because I sent through internet I was going to be a land patent $2.68 to get two certified copies I haven't followed through all the way but the land patents are 160 acres and all I have to do is pull one part out of that 160 acres and this will get these clear memorial titles and no one has claims for it in fact what I did I went down to the bank I told them I'm getting memorial title on my property I said will you give me a loan on me he said probably not 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 but why is the Supreme Court ruling on it look it up yourself I'm going to give you the signs 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 on television talk about the looney tin people who believe in common law here's the supreme court recognizing common law right here why 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 on this point full of here the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by Kansas and the company claimed that 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 of political jurisdiction and domination where lands are acquired without such consent 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 it's classic 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 and quick boy have they pulled the wool over our eyes or what the court thus the chase is 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 enclaves 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 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 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 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 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 s period ct period 455 1930 here a state attempt to assess and add valorem 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 section of jurisdiction to the federal government the court held the state undoubtedly may cede her jurisdiction to the united states and may make the session even 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 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 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 lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the united states in james versus dravo contracting company 302 united states supreme court 134,58s 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 wilson 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 common 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 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 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 column 66 s period ct period 66 31946 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 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 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 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 oppose 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 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 what really simple easily researched act 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 that 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 to 64 66 S period C 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 valerum tax on its equitable interest in the 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 state sessions pursuant to article 1 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 in 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 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 21 83 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 demise long before now can the federal government get together with officials of the state of 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 as unconstitutional constitutional doesn't give them any right to do that in fact it forbids states from entering into treaties no they can 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 can they do it under contract 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 can it's unconstitutional it's a treaty meaning treaties are entered into with special considerations usually following war you give us 200 million dollars in gold we'll agree 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 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 pay income tax did you know that it's the truth if 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 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 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 and the common laws if it existed 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 does everybody understand and you go back and you try to tell people this they're going to laugh at you and say well then we can do that if it was unconstitutional sure that's what he said in Germany when Hitler came along and 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 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 there is conveyed to private interest the jurisdiction of the federal 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 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 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 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 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 it only permitted its future operation wherein each state by its own provision 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 medical 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 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 1 Section 8 Clause 17 which provides the mechanism for a voluntary session 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 United States and such territories and possessions which may now be owned by the United States 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 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 and 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 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 admission 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 the Constitution gives express recognition about one means of federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction by state consent under article 1 section 8 clause 17 Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction and that in this mode is not pursued no transfer of jurisdiction can take place end quote period subject ended that's it period people come to me and say well I don't know how you did in but you're going to jail they might kill me 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 would 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 I know and the very real possibility they might kill me is why you see me wearing a gun all the time and why we have a crusher which by the way 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 in 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 and 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 co we o Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.