Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?

A fundamental right of all defendants is to challenge jurisdiction of any court, state or federal.

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

by Loren Edward Pearce

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”.

Jake Ryan

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.

Judge Anna Brown

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.

harney county
Harney County Sheriff David Ward

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.

One Quiet Man’s Fight for Freedom
LaVoy Finicum

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.

Duane Ehmer

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.

Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?
Hatfield Federal Courthouse (photo: Redoubt News)

Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

16 Comments on Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?

  1. Mr. Pearce, most reasonable people would disagree with your characterization of the supposed grievances experienced by the heroic Bundy clan as they pursue their Quixotic and delusional quest to be laws unto themselves. FYI, there is a National Wildlife Refuge just north of Vegas that you and your brothers-in-arms can occupy in order to burnish your “Founding Fathers” bonafides. Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.

    But it should be noted that the “Founding Fathers” never duped protesters to act as “human shields” while being infiltrated by “militia” pointing guns at the Redcoats, all the while chanting “whatever it takes”. Sounds more like Osama Bin Laden than our “Founding Fathers” to me…the lowest moral common denominator thing. Even the firebrand John Adams defended the Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre…because they were unjustly provoked. And Bundy has dished out plenty of provocation. Given your rhetoric, and given the fact that no one can repeal the law of unintended consequences, don’t be surprised if more violence such as that from the Millers is perpetuated.

    • That sure is an interesting choice made by P. Schreiber: to mention John Adams in the context of false patriotism.

      John Adams was one of the false Federalist Party members whose goal was to recreate an American Monarchy in place of the organic American Federation; the Monarchy in America, according to the actions (not the lies) accountable to the membership of the false Federalist Party, was to be fashioned after the British Monarchy.

      To see this clearly all someone has to do is look at the work done by the false Federalist Party members, such as The Judiciary Act of 1789, which was done before Amending the slave trade contract (Constitution of 1787/89) with the Bill of Rights.

      False Federalist Party Monarchs = Judiciary Act of 1789
      Actual Federalists like George Mason = Bill of Rights

      What does one piece of work look like compared to the other work?

      Which work looks like the work of British Monarchs, Oligarchs, Aristocrats, Despots, Tyrants, Slave Traders, War Mongers, Central Banking Frauds, and Top Down Dictators running a Dictatorship with Summary Just-us courts, legal fictions, standing armies, and excise taxes?

      Which piece of work looks like organic, grass-roots, common law, law of the land, equal protection under the law, voluntary, mutual, defense, association?

      1. Judiciary Act of 1789
      Then later in time
      2. Bill of Rights.

      Also see Thomas Paine’s letter “To the citizens of the United States”
      November 15, 1802

      “But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the “Rights of Man” was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

      “But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonor to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.

      “As to any injury they can do at home to those whom they abuse, or service they can render to those who employ them, it is to be set down to the account of noisy nothingness. It is on themselves the disgrace recoils, for the reflection easily presents itself to every thinking mind, that those who abuse liberty when they possess it would abuse power could they obtain it; and, therefore, they may as well take as a general motto, for all such papers, we and our patrons are not fit to be trusted with power.

      “There is in America, more than in any other country, a large body of people who attend quietly to their farms, or follow their several occupations; who pay no regard to the clamors of anonymous scribblers, who think for themselves, and judge of government, not by the fury of newspaper writers, but by the prudent frugality of its measures, and the encouragement it gives to the improvement and prosperity of the country; and who, acting on their own judgment, never come forward in an election but on some important occasion.

      “When this body moves, all the little barkings of scribbling and witless curs pass for nothing. To say to this independent description of men, “You must turn out such and such persons at the next election, for they have taken off a great many taxes, and lessened the expenses of government, they have dismissed my son, or my brother, or myself, from a lucrative office, in which there was nothing to do”-is to show the cloven foot of faction, and preach the language of ill-disguised mortification.

      “In every part of the Union, this faction is in the agonies of death, and in proportion as its fate approaches, gnashes its teeth and struggles. My arrival has struck it as with an hydrophobia, it is like the sight of water to canine madness.”

      And also in the same letter by Thomas Paine:

      “When the plan of the Federal Government, formed by this convention, was proposed and submitted to the consideration of the several States, it was strongly objected to in each of them. But the objections were not on anti-Federal grounds, but on constitutional points. Many were shocked at the idea of placing what is called executive power in the hands of a single individual. To them it had too much the form and appearance of a military government, or a despotic one.

      “Others objected that the powers given to a President were too great, and that in the hands of an ambitious and designing man it might grow into tyranny as it did in England under Oliver Cromwell, and as it has since done in France. A republic must not only be so in its principles, but in its forms.

      “The executive part of the Federal Government was made for a man, and those who consented, against their judgment, to place executive power in the hands of a single individual, reposed more on the supposed moderation of the person they had in view, than on the wisdom of the measure itself.

      “Two considerations, however, overcame all objections. The one was the absolute necessity of a Federal Government.

      “The other, the rational reflections, that as government in America is founded on the representative system any error in the first essay could be reformed by the same quiet and rational process by which the Constitution was formed, and that either by the generation then living, or by those who were to succeed.

      “If ever America lose sight of this principle, she will no longer be the land of liberty. The father will become the assassin of the rights of the son, and his descendants be a race of slaves.

      “As many thousands who were minors are grown up to manhood since the name of Federalist began, it became necessary, for their information, to go back and show the origin of the name, which is now no longer what it originally was; but it was the more necessary to do this, in order to bring forward, in the open face of day, the apostasy of those who first called themselves Federalists.

      “To them it served as a cloak for treason, a mask for tyranny. Scarcely were they placed in the seat of power and office, than federalism was to be destroyed, and the representative system of government, the pride and glory of America, and the palladium of her liberties, was to be over- thrown and abolished. The next generation was not to be free. The son was to bend his neck beneath the father’s foot, and live, deprived of his rights, under hereditary control.”

      “Among the men of this apostate description, is to be ranked the ex-President John Adams. It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish in contempt. May such be the fate of all such characters.”

      See also the formation of the First Bank of the United States, Naturalization Act 1790, Excise Tax on whiskey 1791 to confiscate all specie, Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation to crush Liberty in Pennsylvania with a slave (conscript) National army 1791, and John Adams and his Alien and Sedition Acts 1898 to punish anyone daring to publish words that favored the French instead of the British.

      That last one is very curious because it was the French that tipped the balance of Military Power in favor of a Victory for the Revolutionary side in the Revolutionary War against the criminally aggressive British Empire Builders.

  2. How about a comparison of judgments?

    Thomas Jefferson notes on the State of Virginia:

    “The state is divided into counties. In every county are appointed magistrates, called justices of the peace, usually from eight to thirty or forty in number, in proportion to the size of the county, of the most discreet and honest inhabitants. They are nominated by their fellows, but commissioned by the governor, and act without reward. These magistrates have jurisdiction both criminal and civil.

    “If the question before them be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case, of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only.

    “And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.

    “If they be mistaken, a decision against right, which is casual only, is less dangerous to the state, and less afflicting to the loser, than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system.

    “In truth, it is better to toss up cross and pile in a cause, than to refer it to a judge whose mind is warped by any motive whatever, in that particular case. But the common sense of twelve honest men gives still a better chance of just decision, than the hazard of cross and pile.

    These judges execute their process by the sheriff or coroner of the county, or by constables of their own appointment. If any free person commit an offence against the commonwealth, if it be below the degree of felony, he is bound by a justice to appear before their court, to answer it on indictment or information.

    If it amount to felony, he is committed to jail, a court of these justices is called; if they on examination think him guilty, they send him to the jail of the general court, before which court he is to be tried first by a grand jury of 24, of whom 13 must concur in opinion: if they find him guilty, he is then tried by a jury of 12 men of the county where the offence was committed, and by their verdict, which must be unanimous, he is acquitted or condemned without appeal.”

    RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788):

    “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.

    If then, you undertake to enquire, not only upon what foundation the charge is made, but, likewise, upon what foundation it is denied, you will, in effect, usurp the jurisdiction of the Petty Jury, you will supercede the legal authority of the court, in judging of the competency and admissibility of witnesses, and, having thus undertaken to try the question, that question may be determined by a bare majority, or by a much greater number of your body, than the twelve peers prescribed by the law of the land.

    This point has, I believe, excited some doubts upon former occasions but those doubts have never arisen in the mind of any lawyer, and they may easily be removed by a proper consideration of the subject. For, the bills, or presentments, found by a grand Jury, amount to nothing more than an official accusation, in order to put the party accused upon his trial: ’till the bill is returned, there is, therefore, no charge from which he can be required to exculpate himself; and we know that many persons, against whom bills were returned, have been afterwards acquitted by a verdict of their country.

    Here then, is the just line of discrimination: It is the duty of the Grand Jury to enquire into the nature and probable grounds of the charge; but it is the exclusive province of the Petty Jury, to hear and determine, with the assistance, and under the direction of the court, upon points of law, whether the Defendant is, or is not guilty, on the whole evidence, for, as well as against, him. You will therefore, readily perceive, that if you examine the witnesses on both sides, you do not confine your consideration to the probable grounds of charge, but engage completely in the trial of the cause; and your return must, consequently, be tantamount to a verdict of acquital, or condemnation.

    But this would involve us in another difficulty; for, by the law it is declared that no man shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence: and, yet, it is certain that the enquiry, now proposed by the Grand Jury, would necessarily introduce the oppression of a double trial. Nor is it merely upon maxims of law, but, I think, likewise, upon principles of humanity, that this innovation should be opposed.”

    Above are judgments offered on the public record before the criminal Constitution of 1787/89 which subsidized the African Slave Trade, and gave carte blanc to the War Mongers.

    Below is a judgment since the take-over in America by the criminals.


    First National Bank of Montogmery, Plaintiff
    vs Jerome Daly, Defendant.


    “Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it.

    “Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note.

    “See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318.

    “The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.”

    Aks, perhaps, why “The Federal Reserve” has not been indicted?

  3. See also court transcripts during the Revolutionary period: challenging the so called British (criminal) “jurisdiction.”

    RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)

    “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”

    Also see the Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial. If the question is: “Is It Legal Gibberish To Challenge Federal Jurisdiction?”

    Then, by example, here is an answer:

    “THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including government agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?”

    “THE JURY: Yes (In Unison).”

    See also recent verdicts in the Bundy cases.

    See also an explanation of the meaning of federation in the First Congress of the United States of America during the meeting to decide on a Declaration of Independence:

    “That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:

    “That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; and that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:

    “That, as to the king, we had been bound to him by allegiance, but that this bond was now dissolved by his assent to the late act of Parliament, by which he declares us out of his protection, and by his levying war on us —a fact which had long ago proved us out of his protection, it being a certain position in law, that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, the one ceasing when the other is withdrawn:”

    See also Bonding Code:

    “9.2 – Escalation


    “A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).

    “When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen’s U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists.”

    See also innate, moral, common sense. When those claiming to be protecting and serving everyone are caught red handed protecting and serving only themselves at the expense of everyone (including themselves) it is past time to judge the matter factually; for Christ’s sake the “federal” government has already been caught red handed in conspiracy murder.

    • I am not against what you are saying so will not argue against it.

      The concept touches on a bigger philosophical question, “If body of people are within borders/jurisdiction and some people do not agree to be taxed nor would give their allegiance to the prevailing government…what civil responsibilities and duties can be attributed to those dissenters?”

      Relying of the protection of a Jury is not a 100% guarantee of protection for the dissenters freedom and liberty though it is a step in the right direction; a jury can convict and impugn the freedom and liberty of the dissenters as well as acquit.

      What is rational equitable allegiance?

      • A rational equitable allegiance is a voluntary one. The point offered, or the principle offered, in the ancient common law is voluntary mutual defense, where the people as whole, through juries, consent to, or do not consent to, anything claimed to be “a rational equitable allegiance” or otherwise. Spelled out well enough by Lysander Spooner, the principle of consent, or voluntary association, is supreme, as in the supreme law of the land, which renders all government offers on an equal footing basis: let the highest quality and lowest cost alternative win the competition.

        That is also well explained in the following work:

        Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy

        “Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

        “Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”

        • I have done some work along the lines of, “What would a contract for a Republic look like?” And the impetus was from reading Spooner’s “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” in the early 1990’s.

          The most obvious hurdle is what protections, duties, and obligations are to be attributed to the dissenters (Those who won’t sign/contract) who reside within the jurisdiction/borders?

          The next most pressing hurdle is the life-span of the person’s signature: 1) Is it a one time sign or no-sign opportunity at a coming-of-age?, 2) Is it a daily harrying opportunity, “Do you want to sign the Constitution?”, “Do you want to sign the Constitution?”, “Do you want to sign the Constitution?”. If the Contract has an Amendment Article, with the presumption an Amendment Article is a beneficial versatile thing, then every Amendment would change the Contract and would nullify everyone’s prior signature. Conversely a new Amendment might impel some of those who did not Sign to want to sign…which they would not be able to do if the opportunity was a one-time coming-of-age opportunity.

          The best idea I came up with for this hurdle is called a “Term of Allegiance”. I used the arbitrary example of four years, where a person would have the opportunity to decide their allegiance by, figuratively or otherwise, Signing or Not-Signing. The provides a Golden Mean to the life-span of a person’s allegiance.

          But a “Term of Allegiance” does not solve the first hurdle…what obligations can, without being offensive, be attributed to the dissenters (Those who would not sign)?

          • Criminals do not obey laws, and often criminals pose as the one, and only, protector of innocent people from guilty people.

            That leads to 2 conclusions.
            1. Innocent people do not need government.
            2. Criminals need government.

            If people are going to do what they do naturally, which is live and let live, and do so without government, then people need to teach criminals that crime does not pay: innocent people need to teach the criminals that their criminal choices will not result in any benefit realized by the criminal: at all.

            When government was called Legem Terrae, before Magna Carta, in England, the routine was for judgment to be determined by the whole country, unanimously, through their juries. Judgment was typically limited to a fine offered to a convicted criminal; an amount of cost to the criminal that constituted a redemption offered to the criminal, to allow the criminal to return from outside the law – a voluntary choice was made by the criminal to step outside the law – and a judgment was offered by the whole country, through the jury, to afford the criminal a choice to return back inside the protection of the law.

            Law was (still is) to offer those who choose to step outside the law a choice of redemption; which is also considerable as a choice to restore the injured, innocent, victim in any case.

            Criminals refusing to pay the fine, which was a fine that did not cripple, destroy, or ruin the offender’s capacity to live free in liberty, would be a choice made by the criminal to thereby volunteer to remain outside the law.

            Someone outside the law, voluntarily, is someone who refuses to pay the judgment, and that is someone who is taught to know that if the outlaw is found dead by the obvious hand of another man, that killing of that outlaw is not considerable as a crime: no more than finding a dead Mad Dog would be considerable as a crime if the Mad Dog was found shot to death today; perhaps in the school playground, perhaps shot by a parent maintaining the right to be armed.

            Someone refusing to pay the judgment, or refusing to accept a trial by the country, would then be someone unprotected, and likely threatened, if not killed, and thereby inspired to make a better choice, such as attend his trial, and such as pay the fine to restore the victim, or pay the fine to redeem himself; all of which is done voluntarily.

            In that context offered in those words above, which are merely my own words, not the words of George Mason, or Josiah Warren, or Lysander Spooner, just my own words, but the message is similar, if not exactly the same, based upon a simple, voluntary, principle – with that in mind – what place does the following belong?

            “The most obvious hurdle is what protections, duties, and obligations are to be attributed to the dissenters (Those who won’t sign/contract) who reside within the jurisdiction/borders?”

            Do you mean to ask something else? For example: do you mean to ask moral, honest, innocent, non-criminals, if something ought to be done with criminals who, with malice aforethought, perpetrate crimes upon innocent people?

            Which contract does someone have to sign? Is there a contract that says “I will not be a criminal.”?

            Criminals will sign that contract; it is a perfect cover: fingers crossed.

            “But a “Term of Allegiance” does not solve the first hurdle…what obligations can, without being offensive, be attributed to the dissenters (Those who would not sign)?”

            In England, during the common law period, as described in the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner, the tax demanded by the people as a whole was for people to volunteer for jury duty, and for people to volunteer for military service (any service, in any way possible, by each volunteer, at a minimum, the service of refusing to aid and abet the enemy) during aggressive war for profit (rape, pillage, pogrom, “colonization,” “empire building,” whatnot), while the enemy is past the gate, in the playground, and doing what criminals always do so well: horrify, terrify, torture, enslave, extort, deceive, mass murder, and demand oaths of fealty to the new boss; same as the old boss.

            Those dissenting (not going to jury duty, and not in some way defending against invasion during invasion), if caught, would be subject to their trial, and if found guilty, would they pay a fine?

            If the jury, in that “traitor” case was not representative of the whole MORAL people, then said jury catching a jury dodger, or traitor, might decree something worse than a fine. People are not perfect, therefore voluntary government will not be perfect either. Involuntary government, on the other hand, is merely crime with a fake name.

            Why is it a given that the wheel must be invented anew? A wheel is always round. Voluntary association, or law, is always what it is, not the opposite of what it is: not square.

  4. See also the warning by another American Patriot named Lysander Spooner:

    “It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.

    “If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.

    “If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because:

    “1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and,

    “2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed.

    “The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust.

    “All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.

    “The political insurance company, or government, have no more right, in nature or reason, to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to be taxed for that protection, when he has given no actual consent, than a fire or marine insurance company have to assume a man’s consent to be protected by them, and to pay the premium, when his actual consent has never been given. To take a man’s property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent, where no actual consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man’s consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man’s property without his consent. The government’s pretence of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he do not desire it, or do not bargain for it, the government has no more right than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it.”

    Trial by the country, and no taxation without consent, were the two pillars of English liberty, (when England had any liberty,) and the first principles of the Common Law. They mutually sustain each other; and neither can stand without the other. Without both, no people have any guaranty for their freedom; with both, no people can be otherwise than free.

  5. See also George Mason offering the same warning in other words:

    “Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions {442} should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?”

  6. This take over by legal fiction was predicted. It was predicted by a number of people, before it happened. One of the people predicting this take-over by legal fiction was the 6th President of the United States of American in Congress Assembled. That president was Richard Henry Lee.


    “A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

    “If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

    “If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

    “The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . .”

  7. The Judiciary Act of 1789 passed by Congress gave them jurisdiction.

    I think there is something to challenging the federal courts jurisdiction and I keep thinking about it but one thing I know for sure is that you can’t challenge them when you are in front of them on criminal charges. They hold all the cards (and the guns).

    • The following excerpts from the Judiciary Act of 1789 refer to criminal offenses that have to do with the enumerated and very limited powers of the United States (federal government). Where there is a criminal offense that pertains to external affairs, such as espionage or treason with a foreign country, such as the Rosenbergs selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets, then it becomes a federal offense, triable in a federal court. Crimes on the high seas, outside the boundaries of the several states, are triable by a federal court.
      Note that Sect 34 gives preference to the laws of the states, and that the states will decide most criminal issues, not the federal courts, except where it is offensive to the constitution.

      SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas
      SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply.

  8. I thought “What would Jesus do?”…so I turned the other cheek.

    On the other hand, I thought “What would Ammon Bundy do?”…so I gathered a bunch of militia types with AR-15s and took over the nearest National Wildlife Refuge.

    • P. Schreiber, so when they came and put snipers on the hill overlooking the backyard where Bundy children were playing, with lasers targeting them, when they assaulted Dave Bundy on the side of a state public highway, where he was legally filming them and not blocking traffic and where they ground his “other cheek” in the gravel, and where they threatened to destroy the Bundy livelihood by seizing cattle that had been authorized by deeded grazing rights for over 100 years and where they dishonestly claimed that the Bundys owed over $1 million in grazing fees, to which no invoice or documentation exists, and where they decided without any due process that a tortoise was more important than cattle, and where they tore up water tanks and installations that had been there for decades and covered by deeded water rights and where they threw a woman to the ground needlessly, and where they were denied the presumption of innocence and denied bail pending trial and had to spend 700 days in prison without ever having been convicted, and where the Hammonds were forced to sign over their ranch to the BLM, a ranch that is known to have valuable uranium reserves….all that would be met by Jesus by turning the other cheek? If that is the correct course of action, to turn the other cheek, why didn’t Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock, Madison, Adams, etc, etc. turn the other cheek? Why didn’t Washington do what Jesus would have done and deny you a free country where you can freely disagree with the King of England? Would Jesus expect the colonists to be hung on the gallows rather than fight back? When would Jesus say it was justified to defend your rights?

  9. In a tiny example of this Jurisdiction issue and Fed overreach, I was the advance car at Lompoc, arriving well ahead of anyone else. I parked on the road shoulder outside the prison,and it wasn’t long before a guard came up and told me to leave.I asked him specifically if Fedgov owned the road, and he said yes. I called him a liar to his face, and he backed off…end of story. I do feel that Jake should have avoided the highfalutin’ language in his statement to Brown. He could have made the same points with more traction by expressing himself like Ammon – plain, simple and to the point.

Comments are closed.