Oregon Standoff Trial — Serious Questions of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

For “live” regular commentary and coverage of the Oregon Standoff Trial, follow this LINK.

sodhouse-lane-aerial-1Over the course of the last few days, one of the most fundamental issues in the Oregon Standoff case has finally nosed its way to the front of the line.  On Monday evening, the very eve of trial, prior to opening statements starting the next day, Ammon Bundy’s attorneys filed an emergency motion once again questioning the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case, based on new information which had just barely come forward, including the government’s own motion for judicial notice regarding federal ownership of the property on which the MNWR refuge headquarters was located, eolc-deed-1as well as a white paper which had been written and submitted by Dr. Angus McIntosh and Dr. Michael Coffman addressing that issue. mcintosh-coffman-white-paper The government had claimed that it had always owned the property as part of the original Refuge set-aside by President Roosevelt in 1908. But once the title history, and title itself, were seriously questioned, the government had to back-track. As it turns out, contrary to its previous representations, the government does not have a continuous chain of ownership title and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the property in question.  As it turns out, the section where MNWR headquarters buildings are located had originally been homesteaded, and was in private ownership through a series of private owners until at least 1935, when it was reacquired from the Eastern Oregon Live Stock Company, based on applicable congressional acts at the time which reserved state jurisdiction.

The government produced this deed, seeking to support its case by attempting to show that it does in fact  own at least the surface title at this point. mnwr-s-35-eolc-deed-1  But this deed raises additional jurisdictional questions, and provides fertile ground for Ammon Bundy’s Adverse Possession arguments.  Rather than stay the proceedings at this point, however, the court is giving the the government an opportunity to respond, and has taken the emergency subject matter jurisdiction motion under advisement, to be ruled on at a later date, probably when the government rests its case, based on the evidence that has been presented up to that point.

caution-1For additional commentary, Bundy supporter and activist Gary Hunt has written a thought-provoking piece addressing this issue:

According to Hunt, “Thomas Jefferson had proposed an ordinance to deal with the lands won along with independence from Britain in 1784, and not belonging to any State, any lands that might be relinquished when considered to have been granted by Royal Charter.  The Continental Congress ratified the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 on July 13, 1787.  The First Congress under the newly ratified Constitution, which met from March 4, 1789, to March 4, 1791, then reaffirmed that same ordinance.  This slightly revised version reaffirmed on July 13, 1789, and is known as the Northwest Ordinance of 1789.

The Fourth Article, unchanged in the two versions, reads, in part:

Article the Fourth.  The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America…  The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers.  No tax shall be imposed on lands the property of the United States; and, in no case, shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents.

Note that “primary disposal” seems to be the objective of holding the land.  That disposal would serve two very significant purposes in the creation of a nation that would grow from those first thirteen states.  First, it would raise revenue for the payment of the debt incurred because of the War of Independence, and it continued to provide revenue for the fledgling nation.

Second, it would provide land for people to populate the barren regions, first, across the Allegheny Mountains, then on to the Mississippi River, next to the Rocky Mountains, and finally to the Pacific Ocean.  With each of these principal movements, as those people moved westward, the resources of the most resource rich country in the world would develop into the greatest nation in the world.

With the ratification of the Constitution, we have two provisions that deal with land owned by the United States.  First is Article I, § 8, clause 17, which we have heard much of recently.  It read:

The Congress shall have the Power…  [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Now, a question arises as to the “needful Buildings” portion, which will be addressed later.

Next, we have Article IV, § 3, clause 2, which reads:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Clearly, as we can see from the historical record, Congress can own land, which has been referred to as “public lands”, from records predating the Constitution, reaffirmed by the first Congress, and embodied in the Constitution, itself.

The next question is whether Congress had any prior ownership of the lands in question.  Here, we have three possibilities.  First, the lands acquired by the Treaty of Paris (1783) in which Britain gave up her claims to the lands east of the Ohio River (the Northwest Territories), and other lands ceded by Virginia (believing that she owned land to the Pacific Ocean), and other adjustments to final boundaries of the colonies.  These lands by treaty would also include lands acquired by a subsequent treaty with Britain, dealing primarily with Oregon and Washington.  Next, we have lands acquired by conquest and subsequent treaty.  This would include the Hidalgo Treaty, after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), and subsequent treaties relinquishing Mexico’s claims to lands otherwise not in conflict and establishing our southern border.  Third, we have the lands acquired by purchase.  Primarily, the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.  So, by conquest, by treaty, and by purchase, the government owned vast amounts of land.

In all of these instances, the land acquired could not go to a State recognized by the Congress, as the Northwest Ordinance defined the procedure by which a territory could become a State.  Therefore, the only viable conclusion is that these lands would fall under the Article IV.  § 3, clause 2 provision of “all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”.  This would apply until the land was “disposed of”, which provision is included in the Northwest Ordinance (Fourth Article).

Finally, we come to the Admission of Oregon, as a State of the Union.  Congress approved the Oregon Admission Acts on February 14, 1859.  There were some propositions in the Acts, and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon approved those propositions on June 3, 1859.  The significant article in the Acts is the fourth.  It deals with land, and reads, in part:

First, That sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said State, and where either of said sections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise been disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said State for the use of schools. Second, That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State university, to be selected by the governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said State may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purpose.  Third, That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the legislature thereof.  Fourth, That all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoining, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use, the same to be selected by the governor thereof within one year after the admission of said State, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions, and regulations as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said State. Fifth, That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State, for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the legislature shall direct: Provided, That the foregoing propositions, hereinbefore offered, are on the condition that the people of Oregon shall provide by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States,that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Sixth, And that the said State shall never tax the lands or the property of the United States in said State: Provided, however, That in case any of the lands herein granted to the State of Oregon have heretofore been confirmed to the Territory of Oregon for the purposes specified in this act, the amount so confirmed shall be deducted from the quantity specified in this act.

So, once again, we see the phrase “primary disposal”.  This “disposal”, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to the admission of Oregon in 1859, makes clear that the “public lands” were to be disposed of.  It makes no mention of acquisition of lands, except indirectly in Article I, § 8, clause 17, and it appears that there were only certain purposes for which the land could be acquired, and each is to sustain constructions serving to provide for the required obligations of the government; “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”.  Though the ambiguity of what needful may have been intended to refer to, the noun, “Buildings”, is without question.  All of the itemized objects require construction, and, consequently, the provision is to allow government facilities to be established to serve the needs of the government, not of birds, tortoises, or other critters that the Bible says are put on this Earth for our use.

We also see that a portion of the “proceeds” of the sale of the public would go to the State to provide “for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvement.”  Those improvements would provide both roads and canals for water, both to help with the development of the State.  This would satisfy the intended purpose of creating growth of the State and the Nation.

Understand that each state, within its constitution, may have reserved that state certain rights with regards to land, as explained in the Oregon Admission Acts, but the federal government has no such constitutional authority.

In 1825, just 46 years after the formation of the current government, Congress, in order to have the lawful authority to charge people with the destruction of government property, enacted the “Act of 1825”.  The Act sets the requirement for extending jurisdiction created under Article I, § 8, clause 17:

An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes.  (March 3, 1825)

“That if any person or persons, within any fort, dock-yard, navy-yard, arsenal, armory, or magazine, the site whereof is ceded to, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on a site of any lighthouse, or other needful building belonging to the United States, the sight whereof is ceded to them [United States], and under their jurisdiction, as aforesaid, shall, willfully…”

Now, this Act brings to light what was intended, with regard to federal jurisdiction, outside of Washington, D.C.  If that land has been disposed of, it has left the realm of “needful Rules and Regulations”, and entered into the jurisdiction of the State in which the land lies.  It is, forever, outside of federal jurisdiction — UNLESS it is brought back into federal jurisdiction in accordance with the intent of Article I, § 8, clause 17.  Now, the application of that intent is clearly laid out in the Act of 1825.  That “under their jurisdiction” refers to the State ceding to the federal government either limited or complete jurisdiction.  Simply because the government bought the land does not create “jurisdiction”, or the provision would be without meaning.

A “Chain of Title” was secured for the property upon which the buildings sit at the Refuge.  Based upon that document, an analysis of the documentation provided resulted in determining that, in fact, certain land that had left government ownership, and were subsequently deeded back to the United States of America, though no proof of ceding was shown in the Chain of Title.

sodhouse-lane-map-1The government ownership is contained within the red lined area on the left map.  The Refuge Buildings can be seen above the words “Sodhouse Lane” on the right map

This coincided with the government production of Proof of Ownership in their “Motion for Judicial Notice“.  The results, as far as ownership by the United States of America are identical.  And, as in the Chain of Title, there is no indication that there was any ceding of land or jurisdiction, back to the United States, in either record.  This being the land where the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters are situated, and the location of the alleged crimes by the defendants.

However, that ownership carries no jurisdictional authority.  That remains with the State, unless the government has had that jurisdiction ceded to them, and away from the State, either fully or partially.  And lawfully, the federal government has no more authority than you would, if you owned the land.  If there was an alleged criminal act, you would have to file a complaint with Harney County, and it would be dealt with under state law.

Then, yesterday, September 12, Shawna Cox filed her response, in which she also sought judicial notice that Oregon never ceded the land or the jurisdiction back to the federal government.  Now, this creates a bit of a dilemma in that if the Court takes judicial notice of the ownership, absent proof to the contrary, it must also take notice of the absence of federal jurisdiction.  This will significantly change the playing field.

This article can be found on line at
Burns Chronicles No 27 – Public Lands – Part 1 – It’s a Matter of Jurisdiction

37 thoughts on “Oregon Standoff Trial — Serious Questions of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

  1. You go on believing this nonsense all the way to the Bundy’s appealing their inevitable convictions to the US Supreme Court (and losing there also).

    Short story: the government owns the Reserve and the district court has jurisdiction. Quick question for you: if you tackle an FBI agent trying to arrest someone, on private land not owned by the government, do you think you can claim that the government cannot charge you with obstruction/impeding and do you think that the district court won’t have jurisdiction? Good luck with that argument – not a winner.

    1. No,they clearly dont. If you cannot read the article that says that, I don’t know what to say? Problems with reality, when you don’t like it?

      Jurisdiction is everything, and the fact that Judge Brown refuses to rule on it, shows how desperate they are to retain this case. Facebook Evidence 5 times? Then ruled admissible, when every case I know of, if they screwed up, it was tossed….but the Gov got 5 times and lied to the judge too… they need to dismiss this with prejudice.

    2. It requires a willingness to learn truth and comprehending law in these matters. You don’t seem capable of either. Read, observe and learn.

    3. Apparently, you are ignorant of jurisdictional issues, not to mention the Constitution. As to your question, if the FBI agent is outside his jurisdiction… i.e. outside DC or other government territories, OR, he is acting outside Constitutional authority outside those areas, then YES, I CAN tackle him.her. or “Citizen’s arrest” them, or hold a weapon on them until the Sheriff arrives to arrest them. “District court?” Federal or State/local? You are flying all over the place friend… Do some more study on these issues… http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/Files/Becraft-Federal-Jurisdiction-In-the-United-States.pdf

  2. There are no questions of jurisdiction of this prosecution. The defendants have a fantasy defense which the judge has already correctly denied, that they were adversely possessing the property, that the U.S. Government couldn’t own it, or took it subject to the rights of defendants’ predecessors. All of those arguments are factually and legally false. The questions aren’t “serious.” The correct adjective is “frivolous.”

    1. This is not a fantasy defense, if the State never ceded jurisdiction, then the U.S is no more than like any other proprietor in ownership of land, and any supposed crimes there come under State law jurisdiction. Which means all of the federal laws go out of the window. The Federal government has to obey the Constitution.

      1. Further, you should read the Bivens case. The Supreme Court discusses how the State has jurisdiction based on the Constitution. Also, the fed court cannot sit on or delay the question of jurisdiction, because without it, it cannot proceed! the question of jurisdiction must be determined before any trial can begin. This judge is in violation of his oath if he should proceed without determining jurisdiction first.

        1. The judge has already determined jurisdiction. She has ruled that the court has jurisdiction. If the defendants disagree, they can appeal after they get (and they will get) convicted.

          1. I have not read in the news that the judge determined that the court had jurisdiction yet. I would like to get a copy of that ruling!

          2. There are pending motions on the issue of jurisdiction, based on new evidence presented showing that the U.S. Government has not had continuous ownership of the land, and that it re-acquired the land based on congressional acts that expressly retained state jurisdiction. The court has not yet ruled on those motions, so there has not been a definitive ruling on that issue.

          3. Since new evidence reveals that this Federal Court is likely out of its jurisdiction, would make it unwise to continue until it determines the facts. Justice requires no less, unless this federal court wants to just go through the exercise of beating a dead horse!

            It was stated at the Nuremberg trials (I’m paraphrasing) that once you fail to require justice for the first individual, it leads to a lack of justice for all.

    2. There are actually two questions. One, can they own it? And, since the Deed is recorded in the name of the US Government, there is no one that can challenge that ownership.
      Two is a matter of jurisdiction, Their ownership, unless jurisdiction is given to them (ceded) by the state, the jurisdiction is the same as it is for you or me.
      40 U.S.C. § 3112 : Federal jurisdiction
      (a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required. – It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.
      (b) Acquisition and Acceptance of Jurisdiction. – When the head of a department, agency, or independent establishment of the Government, or other authorized officer of the department, agency, or independent establishment, considers it desirable, that individual may accept or secure, from the State in which land or an interest in land that is under the immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control of the individual is situated, consent to, or cession of, any jurisdiction over the land or interest not previously obtained. The individual shall indicate acceptance of jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by filing a notice of acceptance with the Governor of the State or in another manner prescribed by the laws of the State where the land is situated.
      (c) Presumption. – It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.

      1. This is about the same as agencies of the Federal government not liking the rights granted to individuals pass rules in the Register and now they are consider as law. Except in this code:
        40 U.S.C. § 3112 : Federal jurisdiction
        (a) Exclusive Jurisdiction Not Required. – It is not required that the Federal Government obtain exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over land or an interest in land it acquires.

        The problem is that even if Congress does not like the limitations of the Constitution have now passed a law that says they do not need Exclusive Jurisdiction! However, without the ceding of jurisdiction for civil and criminal process, the US is just like any other proprietor. their complaint should have been filed with the State.

        The Federal Government was never to be a police state within the jurisdiction of the State, there are too many Supreme Court decisions that reveal this.

  3. This all seems like a complete distraction. The Bundys and their buds are charged with conspiring to impede federal officers. They could have done this in the town’s Safeway parking lot, and guess who would have jurisdiction? The Feds! So even if ownership of the wildlife refuge is in question, how would it be relevant to the charges?

    1. Danny, if the feds do not own the land legally, if they do not appear in the custodial chain of title, they don’t own the land the state of oregon does. It means the refuge is basically illegal and the govt would have no standing to bring the case. The state of oregon could perhaps think of something to charge them with…in order for the refuge to exist all i’s must have been dotted and T’s crossed. if for whatever reason, the federal govt does not actually have clear legal and continuous title to the land, and the refuge is not actually on federal land, and the buildings are not on federal land, sorry, no crime took place. At least…that is their way of thinking, which from a legal standpoint…well…it would be correct. the reason the judge does not want article one sec 8 admitted is because that section of the constitution states clearly that outside forts ports magazines and needful buildings the federal govt is not allowed to own land unless it was deeded to them by the states. so…no deed no crime.

  4. At the end of the day these men took a stand against an insideous plot by Clinton and Rissia for mineral rights under the land owned at the Bundy’s Ranch they’re just trying to show the corruption of the system and with dedicated truth seeking counsel they just might have they’re day. It’s an effort to show the brokeness and corruption of the system against “We the People”. If we don’t stand up ever, even to our detriment, then we make the very name American futile

    1. That Clinton/Russia/Uranium story is a hoax. There are no mineral deposits under the Bundy OR Hammond ranch that Hillary or anyone is trying to get their hands on. If you’re going to be angry about something, make sure it’s factual.

      1. Of course you know this is a hoax because you saw it reported on? Snopes? Well, it is not a hoax and it is more scandalous than you realize.

        Here are a few posts (with appropriate references) that shows the relationships wiuth the real conspirators.

        http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2016/08/to-and-fro-who-will-take-final-blow.html

        http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2016/03/land-of-ignorant-or-home-of-destitute.html

        http://fixamerica-fredmars.blogspot.com/2016/02/blood-lust-for-soil-and-earth.html

    2. well. your close. they want the minerals under bundys ranch but harry reids son also had a deal with a foreign company for a solar farm in that area as well. In oregon it was obama and clinton and company trying to get the Hammonds of there land in any way they could due to possible uranium on the land. which in fact hillary did end up selling about 20% of american uranium to a canadian company that was later bought by a russian company. I any case it is all a bunch of corrupt lying thieving politicians making back room deals to screw the american people…and…the first several comments likely be federal govt employees or their cronies exemplify that. every regular american i know that is not employed by the govt is pretty outraged at the govt’s behavior in all of this. Lets not forget the govt flooded out many of hammonds neighbors in the late 70s and 80s. submerging their farms and getting the land for pennies on the dollar and adding these lands to their refuge after the lands were no longer flooded. has been corruption they have gotten away with in this state for decades.

  5. Coincidemtally the refuge appears to be contiguous to Section 36 which was designated for schools. A lawsuit brought by Oregon against the US Government in the 1990’s directed that all IN LIEU OF LANDS be transferred to the States promptly. As recently as 2016 two parcels of one square mile each were released to Oregon, one near Redmond and the other near Bend. Still 1700+ acres according to State Lands is at issue. The Govvernment agencies (probably BLM) apparently gave a list of lands that could be exchanged, IN LIEU OF, isolated Sections … to the State. The State would choose one and the agency apparently said …NO NOT THAT ONE. PICK ANOTHER …. every since the 90’s. ABSURD. A travesty. Do you think maybe, just maybe Ammon Bundy was aware of this type of travesty and more ?????

  6. This whole movement has been built on lies. And very easy to find real records, however their followers are idea logical anti government so they look for and research blogs and sites that support their idealogy instead of truth. As they repeat. Just hang with and listen to like-minded people and avoid the others because they will just confuse you. Talk about brainwashed zombies

  7. As valid as the bundy’s claims are the government’s employee will find in the government’s favor on this simply because the implications of successfully challenging jurisdiction on this matter means that about 90% of existing federal inmates would then need a retrial and would probably get out.

  8. Thomas Jefferson, Revised Report, Plan for Government of the Western Territory
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_3_1s3.html

    Explains the admissions of new states was set up as an extension of the Article of Confederation requiring 2/3 of state legislatures to alter the plan. The plan was brought forward in the Us Constitution, Article 6 “… debts and engagements…” paragraph one. Under the US Constitution the majority of the States became 3/4s under Article V, Amendments. The plan included the 1780 Resolution guarantee and plan as purchased by engagement of the original states with their cessions of claim. Those engagements spanned the time from New York in 1781 to the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 and the adoption of the US Constitution in 1789. The original states cessions of land in the west spanned beyond until Virginia cessions in 1863 and 1871.

    As for Oregon; the Oregon Territory followed closely the wording establishing the Territories which demonstrated continuing the plan for admission to the Pacific Ocean. The organic act for the admission of Oregon, as the second western state admitted as a state, altered the plan significantly without demonstrating 3/4s of the state legislatures approval. Concurrent Jurisdiction, which ultimately grew to concurrent jurisdiction in all the western states, being one. The federal government keeping control of vast areas of the west became another fracture in what is supposed to be a union united with states of equal sovereignty, and mastery of the US Constitution which it ratified with delegated powers provided to the federal government.

    1. As this legal confrontation -OR-based upon authorities of grants/legislation and Constitution federal and state: Gilmer v Lime Point 18 Cal 229 (1861)
      Great historical teaching from Cal SCOTUS after Union had 74 yrs to sort out who owns what. Was Army Corps Engineers and land owner in san Fransisco Bay, Corps wanted private land (State citizen) for a fort.(Federal)

  9. Yes, well, that’s all very nice and it reflects the dazzling “logic” of the “movement”.

    That being said, the accommodations at Super Max in Florence, Colorado, will suit the Bundys just fine – as they did the Montana “Freemen”.

    Proving yet again you cannot fix Stupid.

  10. The facts are that the U.S. Gov’t owns no land except for the ten acres known as Washington D.C. All other lands are public lands that belong to the people (public), you and me. The only technicality is that the Fed sold uranium resources on public land to Russia. The Patriots new this to be illegal, so they made a stand to stop further exploitation of public (our) resources. Every American should have been there to protect the public interest. The Forest Service is of no service what so ever as they too stand in the way of our rights. The BLM is a private company concocted to manage public land. With all of the horrendous forest fires, one can see that they are a failure and waste of money.
    The Hammonds have actually extinguished BLM burns that have gotten out of control. The were allowed to burn brush and weeds on their ranch land to promote the growth of grass. One fire got out of control and the Hammonds accidentally burned 2 1/2 acres of public land. at that time they were exonerated by the BLM. The truth in a nut shell.

  11. The point Harold leaves leaves me to restate, this country was based upon a nation based upon the rule of law. The jurisprudence listed in constitution-common law- recognizes a freeman and is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, even a ‘reasonable doubt’ will maintain innocence, unlike the roman Civil law of Europe where a concept of ‘neutalirty’ is presumed defendant v gov’t prosecutor. Taking time to read Gilmer v Lime Point,will do more than Greg’s “Reflects the dazzling; logi;c of the’;movemen’ “which only shows Greg did not read his US Constitutional history, as one of the Union’s Most esteemed Supreme Courts might give back to his knowledge in these matters. if it concerned the court back then should it not concern Greg and others of same statements Jurisdiction is a key underpinning in US constitutional law.A Doctor of Common Law sent me this: “Marc Stevens, jurisdiction researcher, on premise that USA still is a Nation Under Rule of law (not under law of the rulers :;1. at arraignment, the def. begins the pleading with a statement that he plans to plead guilty,but he DEMANDS ( in freeman status in common law one must demand their rights or they are deemed waive-(this is held in many state and federal court findings-no secret) to have the facts that the prosecution (representing government and sworn to uphold the Constitution) has given the judge.2.If this demand is ignored, the def. will present to the judge an unsigned document in which the above questioning statement is made. Why? In US procedure their must be facts to ‘activat’e the law upon which the court will make a determination. For Grg, should he ever be in Stockton cal court room he will observe a plaque on the front of the judge’s bench ” Reason Is The Life of the Law”
    I think logic = reason.

    1. But where did the Rule of Law change to the Law of the Rulers? Consider Oregon, the second western State admitted to the Union, Organic Act therein, and Article VI, paragraph 1 of the US Constitution.
      The plan for admitting new states included three fundamental elements: 1) The guarantee offered in the 1780 Resolution on Public Lands which was purchased as the original states engaged it by their cessions of western land claims; 2) the 1785 Land Survey Ordinance; and 3) the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. All three of these elements were made a Compact level requiring a super majority to alter. Of note on the 1780 Resolution, these began with New York in March 1781 and spanned until Virginia’s last direct Cessions in 1865 and 1871. Also noting the actual addition of new states didn’t begin until Vermont (March 1791) after the US Constitution became effective March 4, 1789. Virginia, Massachusetts, and Connecticut had factual or arguable charter claim to the Pacific Ocean which shows followup in the establishment of the Original Oregon Territory.
      In addition, the Louisiana Purchase was funded under the 1780 Resolution made Compact and that doubles its validity all the way to Montana.
      Now to the US Constitution. Article VI, paragraph 1 brings these three elements into, as a part of the US Constitution with its (war) debts contracted, and engagement entered into, the exact purpose of the guarantee still needing a super majority of state legislatures to alter, not by simple passage by Congress.
      With that I get back to Oregon, and its Organic Act. A major change was made in that Organic Act with no proof of legislatures ratification which was common in those days. The glaring alteration concerns “Concurrent Jurisdiction” on the Colombia River, a perfect suitcase packed element for claiming concurrent jurisdiction on the lands of the western states by federal government. Claiming concurrent jurisdiction would be based upon an Act of Congress leaving out the Article V Amendment requirement. As we notice today, the claims of jurisdiction by federal government has grown in monumental volumes to this day based upon a flow of Acts of Congress, and proclamations of presidents.
      With this, gentlemen, I do not offer personal credentials but the credentials of the documents themselves.

  12. Besides the fact that Oregon did not cede jurisdiction there is another question?

    Does the constitution grant the US District Court authority giving it the capacity to take jurisdiction in Harney County Oregon? Are thes administrative courts part of the DOJ in the executive branch?

    USC Title 28 Chapter 5 (United States District Courts) Section 85 (Jurisdiction) lists the jurisdiction of the courts. Each listing is CIVIL.

    Did the Congress effectively bypass the separation powers when it created these United States District Courts with the exception of the court in Hawaii and the District of Columbia? (USC Title 28 Chapter 5)?

    Article III courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Those limits are defined in Article III and do not include criminal and civil trials.

    The Article IV district courts are courts of general jurisdiction. Nowhere in the constitution are they given authority to take jurisdiction in Oregon and Nevada.

    I suspect the Congress created these courts specifically to bypass the separation of powers. Not being under the judicial branch, they fall under the DOJ in the administrative branch. That explains why no one gets a fair trial and the constitution cannot be discussed or ruled upon.

    Further investigation will show their jurisdiction only extends to the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory and the insular possessions.

    All “United States District Courts” are territorial and/or “legislative courts” that may only operate as administrative rather than Constitutional or Common Law courts. Nearly all of the courts in our federal system are “United States District Courts”. In fact, the only Constitutional or common law district courts in the country United States exist in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. This is confirmed by looking at the Notes under 28 U.S.C. §88, which says for the District of Columbia:

    “It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O’Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals ”shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia”

    The Notes section under 28 U.S.C. §91for Hawaii say the following:

    “Section 9(a) of Pub. L. 86-3 provided that: ”The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States”

    All district courts other than Hawaii and the District of Columbia are, by implication administrative courts, which means that they are territorial courts which may not rule on constitutional rights. Even courts that are Art. III can only exercise that power when the judges are also Article III judges, which few judges are. There is a great deal of confusion over this issue within the legal profession and few lawyers fully understand the implications of this distinction in our experience.

    All of the territorial “United States District Courts” are listed in Title 28, Part I, Chapter 5. The notes at the beginning of this chapter indicate the following:

    28 U.S. Code § 88 – District of Columbia

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Notes
    Historical and Revision Notes
    This section expressly makes the District of Columbia a judicial district of the United States.

    Section 41 of this title also makes the District of Columbia a judicial circuit of the United States.

    Section 11–305 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., provides that the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia shall possess the same powers and exercise the same jurisdiction as the district courts of the United States, and shall be deemed a court of the United States.

    It is consonant with the ruling of the Supreme Court in O’Donoghue v. United States, 1933, 53 S.Ct. 740, 289 U.S. 516, 77 L.Ed. 1356, that the (then called) Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia are constitutional courts of the United States, ordained and established under article III of the Constitution, Congress enacted that the Court of Appeals “shall hereafter be known as the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 7, 1934, 48 Stat. 926); and also changed the name of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to “district court of the United States for the District of Columbia” (Act of June 25, 1936, 49 Stat. 1921). In Federal Trade Commission v. Klesner, 1927, 47 S.Ct. 557, 274 U.S. 145, 71 L.Ed. 972, the Supreme Court ruled:

    “* * * The parallelism between the Supreme Court of the District [of Columbia] and the Court of Appeals of the District [of Columbia], on the one hand, and the district courts of the United States and the circuit courts of appeals, on the other, in the consideration and disposition of cases involving what among the States would be regarded as within Federal jurisdiction, is complete.” See also to the same effect Clairborne-Annapolis Ferry Company v. United States, 1932, 52 S.Ct. 440, 285 U.S. 382, 76 L.Ed. 808.
    28 U.S. Code § 91 – Hawaii

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Notes
    Historical and Revision Notes
    Court of the United States; District Judges
    Pub. L. 86–3, § 9(a), Mar. 18, 1959, 73 Stat. 8, provided that:

    “The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii established by and existing under title 28 of the United States Code shall thence forth be a court of the United States with judicial power derived from article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States: Provided, however, That the terms of office of the district judges for the district of Hawaii then in office shall terminate upon the effective date of this section and the President, pursuant to sections 133 and 134 of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two district judges for the said district who shall hold office during good behavior.”
    Section 9 of Pub. L. 86–3 provided in part that subsec. (a) of that section should be effective upon the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union.

    28 U.S. Code § 108 – Nevada

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Notes
    Historical and Revision Notes
    Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 174 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 94, 36 Stat. 1118; June 24, 1930, ch. 595, 46 Stat. 806; Nov. 15, 1945, ch. 482, 59 Stat. 582).

    Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
    Amendments
    1990—Pub. L. 101–650 substituted “, Reno, Ely, and Lovelock” for “and Reno”.

    28 U.S. Code § 117 – Oregon

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Notes
    Historical and Revision Notes
    Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 183 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 102, 36 Stat. 1122; Nov. 6, 1945, ch. 447, 59 Stat. 555).

    Provisions relating to appointment and residence of deputies by the clerk and marshal, and maintenance of offices by said officers, were omitted as covered by sections 541 [see 561], 542 [see 561], and 751 of this title.

    Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
    Amendments
    2000—Pub. L. 106–518 substituted “Eugene or Springfield” for “Eugene”.

    1970—Pub. L. 91–272 provided for holding court at Coquille.

    1950—Act Aug. 3, 1950, provided for holding court at Eugene.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *