Okay, I want to welcome everybody to our, is this the fifth? Yeah. Fifth annual conference. You've been to every one of them, haven't you? You missed one? Which one? First one? Second one? I know I see you all the time. Okay. Before we begin, I want to bring a few things to your attention. Number one, for those of you who have been missing Veritas since back in publication, all of you who are subscribers should have received issue number 15 in the mail. Is there anybody here who's a subscriber who did not receive issue number 15 in the mail? Okay, Jay, I want you to see Annie and make sure your address is correct. Give her your current address. It hasn't changed, has it? Well, just give her your address and we'll make sure that everything's stringed out. Issue number 16 goes to press day after tomorrow. In the mail shortly thereafter. Two other things. Since our last conference when we challenged everyone to do what we're doing, put out a newspaper and tell the truth, if the newspapers in your hometown are not telling the truth, some people went on and did it. Al McCurkey. How do you distribute your paper? Guess what this guy's doing? He gives it to all the homeless people and tells them they can sell them for whatever they get and keep the money. Gets distributed. How about that? Marketing genius. In my hometown, we have the Round Valley Paper. Now, I didn't bring this in because it has a front page story about me. I brought it in because the current issue and the next issue does not appear until Wednesday. Okay? This is put out by our neighbor, Glenn Jacobs. It's called the Round Valley Paper. As you can see, well, you can't see. But as you used to be able to see, the way he started this out, he didn't have a word processor, couldn't afford a computer and all that stuff, so he wrote it on it. On the layout sheets. Took it to Gallup and they voted it and everybody got a hand-printed paper. Same size, same thickness, everything. It was beautiful. Now, we have the word processor and all that kind of stuff and it's printed with regular typeset. And it's beautiful paper. If you've been through this paper, I know I gave every one of you one personally unless you came in. Am I getting feedback again? Unless you came in a little later today. And in which case, you can go back and get one off Annie's table back there. And if you go through it, you'll see that he's printing all the stuff that people need to read. There's no tabloom in this paper. There's local events, things that concern the local people. Things that concern us on a national level. Patriotic things. Constitutional issues. All the things that people should be really reading. Now, you know what's really neat about this paper? Glenn Jacobs is as poor as a church mouse. Glenn Jacobs doesn't have any money. And I'm serious. I'm dead serious. Glenn is poor. He lives on a street called Poverty Flat. Because when the round dollar was first built, Poverty Flat was where all the poor people lived. His family was poor. They're still poor. He publishes his paper. Puts it out. Charges 25 cents a copy. And he puts some food on the table for his family. But he doesn't make any money doing this. He does it because it needs to be done. You can do the same thing. And if you have any kind of marketing expertise, you can make a living making a paper that people need to read. And you can give your community an alternative source of news and information. Which is important. You know why I published my paper? Because somebody told me I couldn't do it. When anybody tells me, you want me to do something, tell me I can't do it. I'll do it so quick you'll make your head spin. Whether I can do it or not doesn't make any difference to me. Never has. It shouldn't make any difference to you. You know why a lot of people don't do this? I say, why aren't you doing this? Well, I don't know who you believe. Neither do I. Neither do I. Neither do I. If you don't believe me, I'll drive you over to Glenn's house and introduce you to him and you can see for yourself. Neither does this guy. No money. So, you can do it. What's stopping you from doing it? If you're not doing it, what's stopping you from doing it? Time. Time? I don't have any time. Glenn doesn't have any time. He has a family defeat. See, these are all these rationalizations why we shouldn't do something. It's just a way for us to feel good because we're letting somebody else pull the load. And what I'm telling you, that don't cut the mustard. You can feel good all you want to, but pull the load, you'll feel better. Believe me, you will. You really will. I'm going to turn this down just a little bit here. Still get feedback. I hope that takes care of me. Okay. Now, this afternoon, you've got me. You know what that means? That means you're going to be taking copious notes and learning something. And what I'm going to teach you is some incredible information that some of you may know, most of you don't know even exist properly. And if you pay attention, we'll set you free. Now, I've had a personal policy in the past of never teaching anybody anything about law. I am not a lawyer. I'm not going to teach you to be a lawyer. What I'm going to teach you today is not going to make you some kind of wizard that can go into court and solve all your problems. I am not giving you legal advice. I'm going to teach you what I know and what a lot of other people know. Okay? I've studied for many, many years. I work with people like Lawrence B. Kraft, who's one of the preeminent faith-free attorneys in this country. I work with a lot of other people across the country who are digging. Dan Meador, for instance, who are digging to uncover the truth and the law instead of the deception that we are used to dealing with. And we share our information. And if you watch Veritas or have been reading Veritas for very long, you've seen some of it printed in there. Some of it is so strange and so weird compared to the fantasy land that we've been taught to believe in that people find it just too fantastic to believe. But the truth is, once you learn this stuff, people like me find the fantasy that all the rest of the people are living in too fantastic to believe. It's as if the human race really doesn't have a brain. It is incapable of original thought. Our deductive reasoning or any kind of investigative or research ability. Or else they just don't give a damn. And if they don't give a damn, they're going to get exactly what they deserve, which they're going to be. The end result of that is they're going to be once again dissuaded as they were for most of human history. And I'm going to turn this down again. Did you hear feedback? Yes. And that's about a little more than that. Try that. Testing. Can you still hear me? Hear feedback? No. Okay. The reason I'm going to give you this is to give you an understanding that what you thought about the law is wrong. I'm going to teach you some things about the Internal Revenue Service also today. And believe me, once you know this, what I'm going to tell you doesn't mean you can take it and run down and cure all your Internal Revenue Service votes. To get into that battle, it's a real battle, and you've got to be stubborn like me, and you've got to draw the line and be willing to fight the fight and die if you have to for the right thing. Because that's really what you've got to do. Because those guys, when they come after you, they don't quit. And it's just a forever battle. I've been battling them for 12 years, so far I'm winning. If they could drop out of the sky tomorrow, I'm killing them. That's the kind of battle it is, so we live in uncertainty. I happen to know from watching them that I'm safe for another year. Because I'm a leader in the Patriot community. If and when they ever come after me, it will be a few weeks before April 15th. April 15th just went by, so I'm safe for another year. The reason they would do that is they say, see, you were listening to this guy, you thought he had it, you know, you better file and pay your income taxes, because we took him down, we'll take you down too. That's why they do that. That's why they do it right before April 15th. Okay? So, this will give you a basis upon which to found a program of research and investigation through which, after a long time of study and work, you can stand toe-to-toe with them and fight the battle like me and many other people are. And if you're really a principled individual who really believes in the principles and ideals which you all tell me that you believe in, sooner or later you must draw a line and say, enough is enough. I'm going to fight the battle because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason. Fear be damned. Kill me be damned. Take all my possessions be damned. I must do this because it is the right thing to do. And until people do that, you're in danger of going backwards in the evolutionary course of human history. See, for most of the history of the human race, we were slaves. We were owned by somebody. Some king. Some queen. Some sultan. Some emir. Or some dude that just had a bigger axe. You know? When they created the United States of America, it was the first time in the history of the entire human race that any people had ever been free. And we're going to give it back. I don't understand it. It's the ultimate achievement, in my estimation, of humankind. To give man freedom and holding responsible for his actions. To go backwards into slavery. Or into some kind of feudal system. Or some system where we give up our rights in exchange for a promise of security and food on the table and all that kind of stuff. Is an admission of absolute incompetence for the road of life. It's an admission that we're not adults. We're children. It's an admission that we can't use our brain. That we don't deserve to be free. It's complete capitulation, is what it is. Surrender to childhood. I've said this many times, I'll say it again. Most people, here's what they do. They spend the first 18 to 21 years of their life struggling against their parents to become free and responsible and strike out on their own. Right, Melissa? Melissa just graduated from high school. She can't wait. Move to college and get out on her own. Now, here's what happens to most people. I'm not saying this is going to happen to you, Melissa. I don't know. You don't know yet either. But you're going to find out real quick. And so, well, everybody is going to be watching you. So you get out there and then you find out, hey, this ain't no easy life. This ain't no pre-puff, man. It's rough out here. And if I don't make these payments, they come and take this stuff. My credit record's ruined. I can't ever charge any of that. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I can't get a job. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All there is is, you know, nobody wants to hire me because I'm too young, but I can get a job. Dishwashing, but I don't want to dishwash it. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so, after 10 or 15 years of this crap, struggling against the system to make it, people say, screw this. I want to be a little child again. I want a daddy to take care of you. That's why socialism is so attractive to most people. It promises you a clean diaper. It promises you a place to sleep. It promises you a bottle of milk, and you can stuff on the nipple all you want to, and it will never go empty. It promises you that they will give you a job or something to do, and if you don't want to work, they'll still feed you. They'll take care of you. They'll put you to bed. Tell you what time you can get up, what time you can go to bed. If you can't drive, or if you can't drive, you're going to be safe because they wanted the criminals to come in and get you, and all that kind of stuff. A lot of people give up struggling to be free, and revert back to childhood and socialism, and then becomes the daddy. That's what's so attractive about it. That's why people suck up socialism. It lets you be the child again that you left behind. So, way back there. Along with my hair and Bob's hair. It's back here so quick. Right, Bob? But if you understand what that truly means, it means enslavement. And if you love freedom like I do, it is the most distasteful, most terrible consequence or end result that I could possibly imagine. Because being a child in a socialist is no different than being a child in a home where you couldn't choose your parents, and they may not be good parents. And they can be good or bad at the end. And you have not responsibilities or rights, you have privileges. And daddy can give you privileges or take them away any time he wants. And daddy gets real mad at you, and he can really abuse you, can't he? He can really beat your butt and send you a room and kick your ass and slam the door and lock you in the barn or wherever he wants to do it. Because daddy's going to do that. And by and large, all governmental systems, no matter what they start out to be, disintegrate into tyranny. Because the governmental system will accumulate power as long as it can until it becomes omnipotent and you become the worm that means nothing. All governments will proceed in that direction until they're stopped or they decay and disintegrate. When the founding fathers established the United States of America, they put in to place checks and balances, created a contract called the Constitution between the states and what they created, the federal government, that limited the powers of the federal government, protected the rights of the states and the people, and granted to government certain restricted limited powers so that it could conduct its business for the general welfare and good of the states and of the people. It wasn't supposed to ever be what it is today. It has done what all governments do. It began ignoring its limitations, conning the people into believing that it has powers that it does not, exceeding its limitations, grabbing and bringing to it powers that it does not have and has never had. And I'm going to reveal some of that to you today so that hopefully you will be brought to a state of awareness and awaken this. And you can be a real people instead of what I call a sheeple. And as you go out the door, just to the left outside the door, you'll see there's a bench or a couple of chairs there with some wool, sheep's hide on it. That's from last year. Some guys came, they were sheeple. When they left, they left the wool behind and they became real people. That's why it's on display for all to see. Okay. Now we gave you a pad and we gave you a pen. And the reason we gave you that is so you will use it. So I want to see furious writing going on while I'm talking. Okay. In the United States, this is federal jurisdiction. And this is going to blow your mind. Everything I'm going to give you today is going to blow your mind literally. Federal jurisdiction. By the way, this was written by Lawrence B. Craft. A good friend of mine. And I already told you, one of the preeminent patriot attorneys in this country. In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions. One being that of the states within their own territorial boundaries. And the other being the federal jurisdiction. So the two jurisdictions are the states within their own territorial boundaries and the federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control, and govern real and personal property. Individuals and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given state. It's important that you understand. Legislative power to regulate, control, and govern real and personal property. Individuals and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given state. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited. Anyone who's ever read the Constitution cannot but be aware of that fact. With the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory. Now what did I just say? Federal government has no authority or jurisdiction within the territorial boundary of any of the several states of the Union. Federal government has no authority or jurisdiction. Now what you're going to be saying? Then you come back and tell me what you are. They never come back. Never. And they don't quit their job. You know why? Because they have a wife at home. You can't quit your job. You weren't going to do that for 10 years. If you quit your job, we lose all the security and security and medical benefits and all this, and I won't sleep with you ever again. Right? It's the truth. Part of the control mechanism is to teach women that men must provide them with security. If men can't do that, they're worthless. So they can't quit. Or they lose their family. They lose their children. They lose their life. They lose their lives. I'm not saying anything against women. Women are like the rest of us. We have all been brainwashed to fit the role of manipulated or manipulator within a control system. And we all function, for the most part, exactly like the little lemmings that they want us to be. It happens to be the truth. And this goes out real explicitly in Chapter 1 of my book, Behold a Pale Horse, which is silent weapons for quiet wars. Hossed up the family and family structure and how it works to maintain the control mechanism for the state. Notwithstanding the clarity of this simple principle, the line of demarcation between these two jurisdictions and the extent and reach of each has become somewhat blurred due to popular misconceptions and the efforts expended by the federal government to conceal one of its major weaknesses. Only by resorting to history and case law can this obfuscation be clarified and the two distinct jurisdictions be readily seen. Obfuscation means hidden, baled, smokescreen. The original 13 colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English parliament. Now don't get the crown confused with the queen. Does anybody know the difference between the crown and the queen? Yeah. What is it? The crown is in the middle of one and I thought it was square. The crown is the one mile square Masonic entity which controls the Bank of England called the City of London. The queen is something entirely different. So what does that tell you? The ruler of the colonies was the Bank of England, a Masonic controlled organization. The political connections of the separate colonies to the English crown and parliament descended into a rebellious state of affairs as the direct result of parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760s and early 1770s. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the first Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October of 1974. Excuse me. In October of 1774. And his purpose was to submit a petition of grievances to the British parliament and crown. It really served quite a different purpose though, didn't it? Because what did it produce? What did they produce from that? Anybody ever hear the declaration in a minute? By the declaration and resolves of the first Continental Congress dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these parliamentary acts of which they complained as impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional and most dangerous and destructive of American rights. But further they asserted that these acts manifested designs, schemes, and plans which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America. And that's what's happening now. And with that emboldened appeal, presentation of that grievance to the crown, they went even further and declared their independence within just a short period of time. I don't think that they hadn't done that particular exercise of trying to enumerate their grievances and petition the crown that there ever would have been a declaration of independence. Because most people live in fear. So you take a step, if the foot doesn't get chopped off, you tend to take another step, right? Well, that's basically how it works. Matters grew worse, and between October 1775 and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England. And several adopted constitutions for the newly formed states. By July 1776, the exercise of British authority in all of the colonies was not recognized in any degree. The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal declaration of independence. And then war. Matters grew worse between October 1775 and the middle of 1776. Each of the colonies, separately, severed their ties and relations with England and several adopted constitutions. Excuse me, I just read that paragraph. The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new state a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in McElvain v. Cox, Cox's lessee, 8 U.S. Supreme Court, 4 French, 209, 212, 1808, where it was held by the court. Quote, The treaty of peace contains a recognition of the nation. A recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. A recognition. From hence it results that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state from the time they were enacted. End quote. The consequences of independence was again explained in Harcourt v. Gileard. 25, United States Supreme Court. 12, Wheat. 523, 526, 527, 1827, where the Supreme Court stated, quote, There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states. Therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from or independent of some one of the states. Each declared itself sovereign and independent according to the limits of its territory. Notice that everything depends upon territorial boundaries and limits. The soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs as the Declaration of Independence as at this hour. End quote. Thus, unequivocally, in July 1776, the new states possess all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits. This condition of supreme sovereignty of each state over all property and persons within the borders thereof continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. Article 2 of that document declared, quote, Article 2, Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled, end quote. Do you know the difference between an act of Congress and an act in Congress assembled? Anybody know the difference between an act produced in Congress assembled? Yes? The way you reported in federal register? Well, it was one day, but that's not the real major difference, no. An act of Congress does not apply to the states or the citizens of the states. An act produced in Congress assembled applies to the states and to anybody engaged in any activity over which the federal government has been given limited power by the Constitution. Do you know the difference between an act of Congress and an act of Congress or an act in Congress assembled? Anybody know the difference between an act of Congress and an act produced in Congress assembled? Yes? The way it's reported in federal register? Well, it was one day, but that's not the real major difference, no. An act of Congress does not apply to the states or the citizens of the states. An act produced in Congress, an act produced in Congress assembled, applies to the states and to anybody engaged in any activity over which the federal government has been given limited power by the Constitution of the United States of America. And in the United States Attorney's handbook, it clearly states an act of Congress has no authority within the states or over the citizens of the states. It does not apply. But you'll never get an act of Congress. The government strained the relations between and among the states and the remedy became the calling of a constitutional convention. But you see, even Larry can make mistakes because that's not the truth. They did not call it a constitutional convention. History clearly shows that the several states of the Confederation sent delegates to sit down and amend the Articles of Confederation in order to make the Confederation stronger, to make it work in manners that it was not working. What did the founding fathers do when they got there? They took a vote. And since they had a majority, and since they were sitting, they threw out what their states had sent them to do and did something that they were not empowered to do. They created a Constitution and changed the government. Were they authorized to do that? No. No. So, actually, what they did was an art law thing. They did something that they were not empowered to do. Their states did not send them there. The colonies didn't send them there to do that. They had no power to do it whatsoever. However, how many of you have heard of recently the attempt to create a conference of the states in the last several years? Raise your hands. What they were trying to do was the same thing the founding fathers did. They wanted to get a majority of the states to send representatives to the conference of the states where they would, by majority vote, create a new government. And throw the Constitution in the trash can. That's what that was all about. They were trying to duplicate what the founding fathers did when they created this country. Found it upon the Constitution. Since they were not empowered to do that, and since the Constitution does not abrogate or destroy or amend or abolish the Articles of Confederation, the Articles of Confederation are still part of the law in this country. How many of you do that? The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787 to attend the Constitutional Convention met, and it wasn't a Constitutional Convention. It was a convention convened to find out remedies to amend the Articles of Confederation and make the Confederation work and cure the problems which they perceived that it had. They met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the states. Although the product of the Convention was more than this, but no intention was demonstrated for the states to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by them at that time, and indeed the Constitution is finally drafted, continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the states as existed under the Articles of Confederation, since they did not abolish the Articles of Confederation and no choice. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution for the United States of America, which defined federal jurisdiction as follows in... Get this. Okay, this is very important. You know, founding fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, they didn't write something that had to be interpreted. These were geniuses. They understood the English language better than anybody living today. And if you get an 1828 Webster's Dictionary, which basically was the same English language that they spoke and wrote, you can read their writing according to the meaning defined in that dictionary, and you can understand what it was they said without any Supreme Court or anybody else having to come along and tell you what they meant or what their intent was or what they wrote. It's clear. Quote, To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever. Whoa. That's pretty heavy, isn't it? I mean, there's no limitations on that, isn't there? That they can do anything they want, can't they? No. Because listen to this. Over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square. Now listen to what I just said. Not exceeding 10 miles square. That's why an act of Congress does not apply to the states or the citizens of the states. An act of Congress only has jurisdiction. Over. As made by a session of particular states in the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, and to exercise life authority over all places purchased. Are you listening carefully, folks? Constitution is clear. These people are way outside their bounds. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district. Not exceeding 10 miles square. As made by session of particular states and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise life authority 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, darkyards, and other needful buildings. Period. End quote. That's it. The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate states for external affairs, and it had no jurisdiction within the states. Period. This defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally dependent upon any given state for protection, and this dependency did, in fact, cause embarrassment for that Congress and for the Confederation as a whole. During the Revolutionary War, while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted its members. The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania proved themselves powerless to remedy this situation, so Congress was forced to flee, first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally to Annapolis, Maryland. Thus, this clause was inserted into the Constitution to give jurisdiction to Congress over its capital and such other places which Congress might purchase for ports, magazines, arsenals, and other equal buildings wherein the state ceded jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government. Now, what does that mean? Does that mean that Congress can send an agent into the state of Arizona and purchase a piece of land and set up a building and now they have authority over that building and that land? Not without the legislative body of the state of Arizona ceding the land to the federal government. Now, how are they ignoring that? It should come immediately to all of your minds. What happened in Oklahoma City recently? A federal building blew up, didn't it? Did the United States have authority or jurisdiction over that property? Why not? Because even today, they can't find any evidence that the legislature of the state of Oklahoma ceded that property to the federal government. In that case, does the federal government have jurisdiction to try Timothy McVeigh and Terry Ickles? No. It was a state matter, state jurisdiction, state venue from beginning to end. So they have succeeded, succeeded, or they have succeeded in exceeding the limitations, lawful limitations of the Constitution. Haven't they? What else did they do that was unconstitutional? The venue. What did they do? They moved the trial to Colorado. What does the Constitution say? All trials for all crimes will be held in the state where the crime occurred. It's in the Constitution. It's the supreme law of the land. You cannot move the trial to another state. Isn't that incredible? They do it every day. And most Americans are so brainwashed they never question it. You know why they never question it? Because they never read the Constitution and those that did don't understand it. They've been taught that it was written by a bunch of doddering old men over 200 years ago who don't understand the complexities of the modern age and that for some reason they weren't writing in English so what they wrote we should not be able to understand lest be interpreted for us. Bullshit. Photocrat. It's a lie. Beginning to see jurisdiction is a big thing. Almost everybody who immediately challenges jurisdiction when they are arrested within the territorial boundaries of the state and hauled into a federal court are set free. How many people do that? Almost none. Very few. They have no jurisdiction. Period. Period. Period. Other than in these areas, the clause of the Constitution did not operate to cede further jurisdiction to the federal government and jurisdiction over those areas which had not been so ceded remained within the states. And still to this day, without the legislative act of the legislature of the state, they don't have any. While there had been no real provisions in the Articles which permitted the Confederation Congress to acquire property and possess exclusive jurisdiction over the property, the above clause filled an essential need by permitting the federal government to acquire land for the seat of government and other purposes from certain of the states. These lands were deemed essential to enable the United States to perform the powers delegated by the Constitution and a cession of lands by any particular state would grant exclusive jurisdiction of them to Congress. Perhaps the best explanations for this clause in the Constitution were set forth in Essay No. 43 of the Federalists. Quote, The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its procedures interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the state comprehending the seat of the government for protection and the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils and imputation of all our influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfaction to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single state and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature and as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the state seating it as the state will no doubt provide a compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it and the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the session as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them as a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will of course be allowed them and as the authority of the legislature of the state and of the inhabitants of the seated part of it to 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 over force magazines etc. established by the general government is not less evident. The public money expended on such places and the public property deposited in them require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular state nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the states concerned in every such establishment, end 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 manifests a legal principle that the states of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders, excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded to the United States. Not just jurisdiction, but 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. An argument before the Supreme Court counsel for the United States admitted as much. Quote, Quote, The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in ports and dockyards ceded to them is derived from the express ascent 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. 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 cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of ports, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other people buildings. It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation, which is jurisdiction, is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together without feeling a conviction not to be strengthened by any commentary on them that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our Constitution had not in view any cession of territory or, which is essentially the same of general jurisdiction, 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? Now what would they do today? They say the state had no authority, the federal government would try the person for the crime, and nobody would even challenge it, because nobody understands it. They have all the regulations they want, but regulations do not apply when they are unconstitutional, are not enforceable, have no lawful standing, period. Any law which is an unconstitutional law is null and void upon its very implementation. The court in Beavons thus established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent, and meaning of the entire United States Constitution. The decision in Beavons was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, brightly, in P. 302, Common 309, Pennsylvania, 1818, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In 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 electing forts. 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 court. In People v. Godfrey, 17 John, 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 killed. Do you understand? They're pulling a scam job on us, big time. Quote, To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed that to bring 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 from which this court relied was United States v. Bevin's Supra. At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Goddry, a similar facts situation was before a federal court. The only difference being that the murder was committed on land which had been ceded to the United States. In United States v. Cornell, 25, fed case. And that's it for today's broadcast, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sorry we ran out of time, but we did. And that's what happens when you don't attend our conferences, you just very simply miss out. Good night, folks. And God bless each and every single one of you. Thank you. Thank you. And you were ok志 youtube, and to the audience love you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.