Help strengthen alternative media by visiting our supporters

Sheepdog Supplies

Do Domestic Terrorists Have America Hostage?

Federal courts continue to protect federal interests and shield federal perpetrators.

Armed Domestic Terrorist Groups Take Americans Hostage in a Coordinated Series of Attacks:

The Terrorists Refuse to Release Them.

By Hari Heath

That should be the headlines. It did happen here. As a matter of law, it is a fact. But, that’s not what the conventional media is reporting.

Such a headline doesn’t fit the narrative of the programming we are fed. It is not what the owners and managers of that media want you to know. They are in the business of creating, altering and limiting the information we call news. But the attacks did happen on American soil. One American was killed in the initial ambush, while over twenty others were taken hostage in a series of kidnappings. This article is about what existing law says regarding the relevant facts in these attacks against Americans in our homeland.

We can “feel” one way or another about this murder and series of kidnappings. Often, names are used to demonize or glorify those on one side or the other in this ongoing contest, but what matters is the facts and the law, and the lawless conduct of the perpetrators.

The cause of this current act of terrorism on American soil began long ago. Congress unlawfully created the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which began putting state and private lands under its’ management regime. One can read about the decades long legal battles of the Hage family, who eventually won, or the BLM taking of all the ranch lands around Cliven Bundy in Nevada who lost all of his neighbors to unscrupulous legal actions by the BLM. Cliven Bundy was the last holdout trying to protect the same thing a federal court had just awarded the Hage family a month earlier in their long legal battle.

The Hammond Family

Similarly, the Hammonds in Oregon had been tried and convicted for arson and went to prison when a controlled burn on their ranch escaped and burned some lands managed by the BLM: Lands that had been previously taken from other ranchers. The Hammonds were tried a second time for the same offense, this time with a charge of “terrorism” added to increase their prison time, all at the behest of the BLM and Department of “Justice” attorneys.

In protest of this unlawful conviction many people gathered in Burns Oregon last winter, and after the protest in town, a few of them went to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and began an occupation of the “refuge.”

That occupation resulted in a standoff, which ultimately resulted in the murder and kidnappings this story is about. But what should matter is the facts and the law here, not how we “feel” politically. And the law hinges on a legally defined term, “Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.”

A History Lesson

Before we explore that issue we must start at the beginning: The beginning of our nation. You see, most of us went to public school and have a very limited understanding of American government and history. We tend to blur and blend important events, concepts and principles  until our perception and understanding becomes clear as mud. We tend to believe in false notions like “Federal Supremacy.” We look at the out-of-control monster that is the federal government and say, OK, they are supreme so I guess it is OK.

Let’s look at a brief timeline to gain some perspective that was most likely missing from our government class in school.

In 1776, 13 British Colonies declared their independence from the British Crown, each becoming a nation-state equal to any of the nation-states of Europe. The last few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence explain this in great detail. These 13 nation-states were soon at war with Britain and found it difficult for each of them to independently manage the external affairs of this new union of American States. In 1781, these States instituted the Articles of Confederation to create a limited federal government to handle their collective external interests and conduct their affairs with the other nations in the world. This worked reasonably well until after the war was concluded, when they found that the Articles of Confederation did not adequately or equitably distribute powers to the federal government of that time.


In 1787, a convention was held to improve matters and, after much deliberation and consideration, the Constitution for the United States was ratified. Some felt that while it did lay down a good foundation for the new federal government, there were not enough protections and limitations in the exercise of government powers. The “Bill of Rights” corrected those shortcomings, adding the first ten amendments to the Constitution in 1791.

Federal Supremacy?

The Constitution declares that the “Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”. Key to proper understanding is the phrase, “made in Pursuance thereof.” The Tenth Amendment further limits the federal government to the powers delegated to it in the Constitution.

We are sometimes bombarded with the notion of “federal supremacy” by those who seek to blur and blend meaning to increase the appearance of federal power, but it is only the constitutionally delegated powers and laws that are made in pursuance thereof that are “supreme.” U. S. Code is full of “laws” not made “in pursuance thereof” because “We the People” have not done our job to keep our republic from ruin.

When it comes to “federal lands” there are some lawful ones. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 delegates an authority to own lands in a State for what is now Washington D.C. and for forts, arsenals, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings, if they are purchased with the consent of the legislature of the state they are in. Wildlife refuges are not within the scope of such a federal purpose or power. The protesters who peaceably occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge were trying to bring some attention to this fact.

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

The prosecution of criminal activity necessarily requires “jurisdiction.” And federal courts require “Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.” An early Supreme Court case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the States:

“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 dominion. Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. 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.”Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885)

The Supreme Court later simply stated:

americans“The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.” (Caha v. United States, 152 U.S., at 215)

In United States v. Watson, 80 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va. 1948), federal criminal charges were dismissed, the court stating as follows:

“Without proof of the requisite ownership or possession of the United States, the crime has not been made out.”

But this doesn’t stop Congress. Congressmen don’t read the bills. And they don’t read the Constitution that only gives Congress the authority to pass laws “in Pursuance thereof.”


So how is terrorism defined in current law? The FBI website says: 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” for purposes of Chapter 113B of the U.S. Code, entitled “Terrorism.” They also state: “Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:

·      Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

·      Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

·      Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

Assassination to Intimidate and Coerce?

Did the FBI snipers that assassinated Lavoy Finicum in an ambush last spring intend to intimidate or coerce a civilian population and influence the policy of government? Given the claims that Lavoy Finicum’s blood was found inside his vehicle before he exited it, was he assassinated, or shot in “defense” of the officers at the ambush, as the official story claims? Did he need to be stopped because he had 6 months of town hall meeting scheduled around the west to expose the unconstitutional fallacy of federal public lands?

Federal Kidnapping

Over 20 Americans have been captured by the FBI and other federal agencies in what can be called the “Bundy Round Up.” They are being held in custody and threatened with lengthy prison sentences, in hopes of a plea deal with the Department of “Justice,” for alleged crimes related to the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge occupation and the Nevada stand off at the Bundy Ranch.


All by a federal government which does not have the lawful authority to impose BLM ownership on a State. It does not own, but rather claims to “administer” public lands in a blur of obfuscation, hoping that “We the People” will never come to know the difference. As non-owners of any properties, properly ceeded by the state legislature as the Constitution requires, the federal government has no “Federal Criminal Jurisdiction.” No real crimes have been committed here, yet over 20 Americans are being held hostage.

So who are the real terrorists? Without any lawful laws, “made in Pursuance thereof,” to support their actions, the perpetrators fit the definitions of the “crimes” they claim to protect us from. What are the nature of the crimes committed by the FBI, DOJ, BLM, Oregon State Patrol and others: kidnapping; unlawful detainment; murder; conspiracy; Accessory; Grand Theft; Perjury, to name a few?

So far, federal courts continue to protect federal interests and shield federal perpetrators, engaged in federal usurpations, all swept under the federal rug, while your fellow Americans who stood up for something important sit in jail waiting for you to forget.

Will there ever be a system of justice in America that does not allow criminal activities to be carried out in the name of government? Will the perpetrators of these attacks be brought to justice and face real consequences for their crimes? Federal Criminal Jurisdiction has its limits. What are your limits? Had enough of government and media lies? When will you stand for something important?



2 Comments on Do Domestic Terrorists Have America Hostage?

  1. Researching the issues around this situation and Organic law, I have to suggest that the foiling problem is at the bottom of the issues facing our nation. It not only boils down to the Global Luciferian influence / world bank via the CFR but it is more simplistic than that. The ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT is what did this, By making it easier for Agencies be it the BLM or any of the many departments and agencies that create the (Administrative Branch of government) to facilitate the process of crony capitalism. At this point I am sure I will loose some readers, however this is not capitalism that supports a healthy society but one that favors monopolies and in this case takes away peoples land and liberties. We as a nation will not be free of this evil process without the help of God. We will not enjoy our God given freedom until this issue is resolved permanently.

  2. Thanks Hari. I’d strongly recommend a closer study of the origins of our republic and the geoplolitcal dynamic which produced a stronger, more “Enerjetic” central Govt. Professor Joanne Freeman’s “Yale Freeman Lectures” – available on you-tube – are a superb source for this, particularly for those who are not big on reading history. Yes, there will be a verdict in the Malhure case, and all the players in it, the accused, judge Brown, The prosecutors, the jury, and all who are involved will be judged , by the verdict of history.And who will write this history? WE WILL ! let’s make it so !……..

Comments are closed.