By Gary Hunt ——Bio and Archives--September 21, 2016
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
In a previous article, "It's a Matter of Jurisdiction", we looked at the constitutional aspect of jurisdiction. Many will simply ignore that aspect, since they believe that the government is not bound by the Constitution, anymore. So, we must wonder whether those who enacted laws, more recently, regarding jurisdiction, especially on lands that were obtained for certain purposes, were as doubtful of the intent of the Constitution.
The original buildings on the Refuge were built during the Great Depression under one of the various work programs intended to provide employment. The land that they were built on was acquired by the government on February 18, 1935. The remainder of the government-owned land in Section 35, as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was expanded, was acquired on November 22, 1948.
Shortly after the first parcel was acquired, on April 27, 1935, Congress enacted "AN ACT To provide for the protection of land resources against soil erosion, and for other purposes", at 49 STAT 163. Those "other purposes did include uses anticipated "to preserve public lands and relieve unemployment". That Act applied:(a) On lands owned or controlled by the United States or any of its agencies, with the cooperation of the agency having jurisdiction thereof; and (b) On any other lands, upon obtaining proper consent or the necessary rights or interests in such lands.So, it was recognized that the federal government need not have jurisdiction, but more about why, later. The benefits of the Act would be extended where local government would extend "reasonable safeguards for the enforcement of State and local laws imposing suitable permanent restrictions on the use of such lands..." So, we see no effort to presume prior jurisdiction, to make all needful rules and regulations, as per Article IX, § 3, cl. 2, or to presume a necessity to require the State to cede the lands to the federal government, as per Article I, § 8, cl. 17, since there were no "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings". Then, on June 29, 1936, Congress went even further in abiding by the Constitution by clarifying their position on "exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever" (I:8:17), with "AN ACT To waive any exclusive jurisdiction over premises of resettlement or rural-rehabilitation projects...; and for other purposes", at 49 STAT 2035.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the acquisition by the United States of any real property heretofore or hereafter acquired for any resettlement project or any rural-rehabilitation project for resettlement purposes heretofore or hereafter constructed with funds allotted or transferred to the Resettlement Administration pursuant to the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, or any other law, shall not be held to deprive any State or political subdivision thereof of its civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over such property, or to impair the civil rights under the local law of the tenants or inhabitants on such property ; and insofar as any such jurisdiction has been taken away from any such State or subdivision, or any such rights have been impaired, jurisdiction over any such property is hereby ceded back to such State or subdivision.So, not only did they relinquish all "civil or criminal jurisdiction", but they ceded back any jurisdiction that had been taken away from any State or subdivision. Now the record had been set straight, in accordance with the Constitution. However, to reinforce that position, we can look to a much more recent statute at 40 US Code 3112. Title 40 is titled "Public Buildings, Property and Works". § 3112 is titled "Federal Jurisdiction". So, here is what the Statute says:
(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.Well, that is certainly well established, by now.
(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.
Support Canada Free Press
(c) Presumption. - It is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the Government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.And, that pretty much sums up the absence of federal jurisdiction in the current matter. Put simply, there is no federal jurisdiction at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the alleged scene of most of the alleged crimes. But let's look at what the government, rather gratuitously, provided in implying their right to pursue criminal charges that if true, as alleged, would be under the jurisdiction of the State or County, not the Federal District Court in Portland. The Government filed a "Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership of the MNWR Headquarters Area". This Motion was supported by another filing, the "Declaration of Charles Houghten", providing the documentation of Ownership. However, Shawna Cox saw through this ploy. She did not dispute the Ownership of the land, though she filed her "Response to and Motion for Judicial Notice Regarding Ownership & Ceding of the MNWR Headquarters Area". In her Motion, she stipulated as to federal ownership and asked the Court to take Judicial Notice that the land had not been ceded to the federal government. So, it is back in the lap of the federal government to prove that they have jurisdiction over criminal matters at the MNWR, in Harney County, Oregon. So, let's do a count down on the Counts:
Count 1 - Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States - 18 U.S.C. § 372This is the single charge that may have merit, though that will be the topic of an upcoming article, and it has to do with a law enacted during the Civil War and the definition of the terms used.
Count 2 - Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities - 18 U.S.C. §§ 930(b) and 2)This was discussed in "Firearms Not Allowed", where the government's own brochure accedes to State law.
Count 3 - Use and Carry of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence - 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(l)(A) and 2)This was Dismissed, as there was no violence on which to base the charge.
Count 4 - Theft of Government Property - 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Medenbach)
Count 5 - Theft of Government Property - 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Ritzheimer & R. Bundy)
Count 6 - Depredation of Government Property - 18 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 2These Counts (4, 5, &6) are purely jurisdictional, as was explained in "It's a Matter of Jurisdiction". As demonstrated in that article, those who rubbed shoulders with the Founders realized that to have criminal jurisdiction, the land upon which the property was located and crime occurred had to have been ceded, along with jurisdiction, for it to be a federal crime. So, at this point, with the exception of Count 1, Reason, Common Sense, and Justice dictate that the government is simply wasting tax dollars and has denied the Liberty, which they are supposed to protect, of all 26 of the Defendants. How has this country come to the point that the federal government can run roughshod over the rights of the States, and more importantly, the rights of the People?
View Comments
Gary Hunt was a Professional Land Surveyor. Having been the County Surveyor for Orange County, Florida from 1974 to 1978, he began private practice in 1978 and continued as such until 1993, when events in Waco, Texas caused him to leave his business in pursuit of restoring the Constitution.
In 1989, he began researching, investigating and studying history, law and events where the government was “pointing its guns in the wrong direction”. He began publishing a patriot newspaper, “Outpost of Freedom”, in February 1993.
Since that time, he has investigated numerous occurrences, including, Waco, the Murder of Michael Hill, Ohio Militia Chaplain, Oklahoma City Bombing, and other events. He has attended the sites to investigate the events, and has reported on his investigations.
He has continued to report on his findings on the Internet, as well as write articles about other current events; about the history of the Revolutionary era; and the founding documents.
His Internet home page is outpost-of-freedom.com