Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?
“Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice,
universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom,
the major media destroy information, and religions destroy spirituality.” ~Michael Ellner, author
Jake Ryan, former protester at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge over two years ago, appeared at the federal court in Portland on January 24, 2018, for his sentencing hearing before Anna Brown, judge in the Federal District Court of Oregon.
Representing himself, Jake Ryan stated to the court: “I’m su juris. I’m a man capable of handling my own affairs” who refuses to recognize a “fictitious entity created by the government,”
Anna Brown responded that Jake Ryan’s remarks were “legal jibberish (sic)” and “legal nonsense,” denying his request to represent himself. She allowed his defense lawyer Jesse Merrithew to argue on his behalf while also letting Ryan speak.
She ordered federal marshals to take him into immediate custody because of his stated views that he didn’t recognize the court’s jurisdiction or laws.
Anna Brown Displays Incredible Gibberish
Anna Brown correctly defines gibberish as “nonsense”. Nonsense is anything that doesn’t make sense, that contradicts itself, and that is “backwards and upside down”.
In a mockery of justice, and in the best tradition of George Orwell’s doublespeak (gibberish), Judge Anna Brown declared to the refuge defendants, at their arraignment hearing, that they were entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The defendants looked at each other and then at her and said, “But these chains on us don’t make us feel that we have a presumption of innocence.”
Then Brown proceeded to condemn these defendants to prison, prior to any trial or conviction, using her discretion to presume them guilty of the crimes for which they were indicted, in blatant upside down, backwards logic. Anna Brown, supported by common law and precedent (often gibberish), was not alone as many judges enjoy the power to imprison defendants prior to any trial with the powers given to them by the unconstitutional Bail Reform Act.
The Right To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction
Anna Brown, further compounding her previous displays of “legal gibberish” or nonsense, punished Jake Ryan for having the audacity to challenge her authority and her jurisdiction.
A form of nonsense is “Catch 22” logic where you are “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” .
Anna Brown punished Jake Ryan for challenging her federal jurisdiction under the Catch 22 logic that if he challenges her jurisdiction then he cannot be trusted to be free pending his prison date because he won’t later submit to her jurisdiction.
This was the same Catch 22 logic used by the federal courts in imprisoning all the Bundy et al prisoners related to the federal trials in Oregon and Nevada. They were damned with pretrial prison for challenging federal jurisdiction but at the same time, they were damned with pretrial prison if they don’t challenge it and remain silent.
A fundamental right of all defendants is to challenge jurisdiction of any court, state or federal. A jurisdictional challenge can be raised at any time, even after conviction and sentencing.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2) allows a defendant to file “a motion that the court lacks jurisdiction at any time”.
The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)
Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.
The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416
No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he (she) has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his (her) own peril.” Middleton v. Low(1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608
A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409
Anna Brown unjustly determined her own jurisdiction and that Jake Ryan was guilty of “legal jibberish (sic)” and “legal nonsense” when he refused to recognize a “fictitious entity created by the government,” or in other words, he refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Arrogantly determining her own jurisdiction, she had the federal marshals use force on Jake Ryan, grab him, forcing him to empty his pockets and then force him into prison.
Is Jake Ryan Right Saying That The Federal Government Does Not Have Jurisdiction?
The framers of the constitution explicitly intended for the federal government to have very limited jurisdiction as it pertained to “Territories” and “Enclaves” and jurisdiction over criminal matters, an exception rather than the rule.
“Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.” New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836)
Court cases, too numerous to list here, confirm, time and time again, that the states have jurisdiction over all criminal matters, even when happening on federal property and that the federal government must prove that criminal jurisdiction was ceded to them.
So, the challenge by Jake Ryan, and other defendants, is: does the federal government have jurisdiction over criminal matters that occur on the Malheur Wildlife Refuge? Did the State of Oregon give (cede) exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government to prosecute criminal charges happening at the refuge in their federal courts?
Sheriff Dave Ward, Federal Law Enforcer?
When Sheriff David Ward went to the refuge to offer safe passage to Ammon Bundy and the other protesters, he did not go as a deputy of the federal government, nor as a federal officer nor as their agent nor as their legal representative nor as their messenger nor as their emissary.
Sheriff Ward was acting in the capacity of his authority as a county law enforcement officer who had jurisdiction over criminal matters happening in Harney County. The boundaries of Sheriff Ward’s jurisdiction as an Oregon law enforcement official, had coverage over the wildlife refuge.
Gary Hunt helps give us the basis for Sheriff Ward’s behavior and says, “Put simply, there is no federal jurisdiction at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the alleged scene of most of the alleged crimes.”
Gary goes on to cite various acts and decisions that clearly show that the federal government does not have authority to indict nor to adjudicate criminal charges happening at the Malheur refuge,
(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. 40 US Code 3112
There is no evidence that Oregon ever ceded to the federal government jurisdiction over the Malheur Refuge, or specifically ceded to the federal government the jurisdiction to prosecute and try criminal offenses occurring within the refuge.
Jake Ryan, and all the Bundy et al defendants, had every right to raise the issue of federal jurisdiction, and not be punished for raising it. The federal government has a solemn duty to respect the defendant’s challenge and has the burden of proof to show they have federal jurisdiction.
Where Does It Say In The Constitution That The Federal Government
Has The Authority To Adjudicate Criminal Matters?
The word “democracy” never appears in the constitution. That was by design, as the framers did not want a democracy, they wanted a “republic” because they knew that majority rule was dangerous to individual freedoms and could turn into a mobocracy or rule by mob.
Likewise, the matter of federal criminal jurisdiction does not appear in the constitution because the framers intended for the states to have jurisdiction over all criminal matters happening anywhere within the borders of the several states.
Even where it involved federal territories, the District of Columbia and other federal enclaves, the federalists envisioned the states handling criminal matters UNLESS, it was specifically agreed between the States and the Federal government, through acts and written contracts, that the federal government would have criminal jurisdiction.
In other words, criminal jurisdiction almost always defaulted to the states and that federal criminal jurisdiction was the exception.
In Oregon, there are numerous cases of the state trumping federal jurisdiction in criminal matters:
State v. Chin Ping, 91 Or. 593, 176 P. 188 (1918):
Shooting committed on street in front of post office and deceased fell and died on sidewalk. Court held, in challenge to jurisdiction of state court, there was no showing of title in the U.S., and that events on street in front of building were definitely in state jurisdiction.
State v. Aguilar, 85 Or.App. 410, 736 P.2d 620 (1987):
Defendant charged with DUI while on federal property, and lower court upheld challenge to state’s jurisdiction. State obtained a reversal on appeal, with court holding that there were insufficient facts in record for that determination to have been made.
It is important to note that the federal government did not have jurisdiction on the state highways in Oregon where LaVoy Finicum was killed, nor did they have jurisdiction for FBI agents to fire shots near the Finicum vehicle, nor did they have jurisdiction on the highway where Dave Bundy was beaten up, nor did they have jurisdiction in the wash under the bridges in Nevada, nor did they have jurisdiction to set up fortifications and check points around Harney County and jurisdiction to threaten, harass and intimidate local residents.
Monstruous Monuments To Federal Usurpation Of Power
The billions of dollars spent on federal courthouses, federal department of justice employees and facilities and on federal law enforcement are monuments to their assertion of power when it comes to criminal matters.
Neither the constitution, nor previous court decisions nor the federal and state legislators ever gave the federal criminal court apparatus a reason for spending so much money on facilities for criminal prosecutions, trials and prison. But, spend they did.
Of course, Anna Brown, Gloria Navarro and other federal judges are going to assume criminal jurisdiction over the Bundy et al defendants. Of course, they are going to punish them if they challenge their jurisdiction because their power base and their job security are threatened if their challenges get any traction.
Jake Ryan, Duane Ehmer and the rest of us are in this tragic situation because we have not raised these issues effectively. Rarely do attorneys raise these issues effectively because they fear punishment and retribution from the federal judges.
It is time that we become educated, informed and that we challenge the federal court in its jurisdiction over criminal matters and that we have zero tolerance for being wrongly imprisoned in federal human warehouses, known as private federal prisons, if the federal government lacks jurisdiction.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews