More on Dealing With Federal and “State” Jurisdiction

06 Feb

HERE IS THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OF THE CORPORATE “UNITED STATES”! The Seat of Government (Washington, District of Columbia) and its spoils-of-war Territories. No “Constitutionally-protected” Rights exist here!!!

Last month I, with over 100 others, attended the Eastern Oregon Mining and Aggregate Development Summit. It lasted for over 5 hours, and over 12 speakers presented information on panels covering Economic Benefits of Mining, Legal Analysis of Mining Problems, and How to Fix the Problems.

I took good notes on speakers on matters that caught my interest…mostly that of dealing with the federal bureaucracy.

Here are some of my thoughts that relate to the mission of OathKeepers and of our support of the Forest Access and Mining groups.

On the Legal Analysis panel, Portland environmental attorney Brien Flanagan told of the presumption that the use of chemicals in mining is harmful, although much evidence exists to the contrary, and the presumption has never been tested. He told of water permits triggering federal jurisdiction over mining operations, and that the permitting process brought together a number of other agencies to review and evaluate and have hearings, etc, causing huge delays in getting “permission” to mine.

My comment on this is that Flanagan is a BAR (British Accreditation Registry) attorney approved by “this state” (a private corporate fiction not created under a constitution) and his first duty is to the continuation of the corporate venue and the court system, and his second duty is to his client. This is FACT. He is not capable of challenging the jurisdiction of the federal government, which OWNS “this state”, for to do so he would be dishonoring his own personal Oath and his accreditation would evaporate.

Presumptions in law can be overcome by admissible evidence, properly presented, which would diffuse much regulation. But, to me, the primary lawful stance to take would be to not apply for a federal permit (permission for privilege) to do what you have a right to do in the first place. Go to your county and handle it locally.

The big deceit of government is to get the people to enter, through application forms, into their private federal territory and get them to ask for a benefit or privilege…or a FREE GRANT!…, and THUS EVOKE FEDERAL JURISDICTION over everything that occurs thereafter! Their “permitting process” FORMS themselves are written by BAR attorneys for the purpose of triggering federal jurisdiction over matters that are not constitutionally within federal jurisdiction.

Can anyone show me in ANY constitution where the federal government, in either its de jure (original lawful jurisdiction) or de facto (supplanted corporate contract jurisdiction) capacities, is granted ANY authority by the “States”/”states” (federal territories/original “Several states” united) to regulate anything having to do with water or resources within the boundaries of that state?????????

Such jurisdiction does not exist. But it can be voluntarily granted or given or contracted away or otherwise handed over by the states or counties. Rights are property. Property can be lawfully transferred in many ways. When a sovereign county or state possesses Rights, they are the Rights of the people. The people surely would never consent to their inherent, unalienable Rights to be transferred to a private corporate entity called “United States” or its agencies! To do so is TREASON against the people. When deception (fraud) is involved, the legal relations or contract terms are vitiated (debased, defective). Fraud is a result of deliberate misrepresentation to obtain a given result.

So, back to Flanagan’s statements. His statements are the result of the generally-accepted presumption that federal laws control water and mining activities. And, once someone applies for a federal benefit that constitutionally would exist ONLY in Washington DC or other federal territories, private corporate jurisdiction and law is triggered and all the other agencies and their regulations would be brought into the picture.

My challenge, were I an active miner, to the feds would be that I intend to work a private claim on the soil of The State of Oregon de jure and that I am OUTSIDE territorial federal jurisdiction and not subject to federal territorial regulations. I would not make use of any federal territorial identification (FULL CAPITAL NAME, zip code, territorial state designation “OR”, territorial metes and bounds in my land description, federal “time” designation, etc,) that would place me under their private, foreign, territorial jurisdiction.

The permitting process “system” these attorneys talk about are ALL within the federal venue that does not exist lawfully or Constitutionally outside its territory UNLESS YOU VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO CONTRACT WITH THEM AND BRING THEIR JURISDICTION OVER YOU. This is Fact.

Then, our own local miner’s advocate Jan Alexander presented her views on the problems to miners created by the State. She is rightfully encouraging everyone to get legislative help from the State.

But my perspective is from another direction, that of challenging the lawful existence and authority of what everyone thinks of as the “State”. I will be writing a detailed article in the near future about the legal and lawful differences…and the significance to us as OathKeepers and Inhabitants… between “state” and “State” and “this state” and “in this state”.

Most people believe all the above are the same thing. They are not. The difference is extremely significant, and is the result of fraud and treason.

In a nutshell, here is what has happened: The federal government has a very limited jurisdiction within the “Several states”, under the constitutions. But it has UNLIMITED lawmaking power and authority over its own territories and land deeded to it for the purposes of forts, arsenals, lighthouses, necessary public buildings, etc.

The federal government (Congress) calls its OWNED land within the borders of each organic, original (“one of the Several”) states “STATE OF _(whatever)________” and “this state” and “in this state”. Note the purposeful similarity to the original “The State of Oregon”. Similar, but far from identical. Totally conflicting, foreign jurisdictions. Deceptive? You tell me.

Within (“in”) the original organic state, the federal enclave “STATE OF OREGON”, as a territory of Congress, is not bound by Oath to protect or defend the Rights of the People. That is why the Oaths of Office of elected officials are only to the laws of the “United States” (federal territory) and NOT to “The United States of America”.

All the regulatory and punitive “alphabet agencies” created by US Congress have unlimited, unencumbered authority under the Constitution of the United States to operate within their territorial jurisdiction. Now they have DECEIVED everyone into accepting their authority in STATE OF OREGON, “this state”, when the intent of the framers of the constitutions clearly intended the federal authority to be limited to its seat of government under Article 1 Section 8.

“STATE OF OREGON” is a “privately-owned company located in Salem Oregon” says, a reporting agency of all corporations in this country. Is Manta lying? No. And, significantly, the Secretary of State of the State of Oregon testifies that “no such entity” named “STATE OF OREGON” exists and has standing to do business in Oregon.

Yet, I have a list of Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN) for STATE OF OREGON and all of its various agencies and subdivisions. I also have lists of all State agencies and county (also political subdivisions of the federal government) with their TINs and their Dun and Bradstreet account numbers. These municipal agencies are internationally traded on the securities exchange.

Confusing? You bet! Deliberately so. Treasonous? By definition, yes. Look it up.

FYI, there is a movement in all of the states to restore their original constitutional government. Men holding renewed land patents and qualifying as “electors” (not corporate “voters”) have lawfully elected organic governors and representatives which are recognized as the legitimate, lawful authority by the Military powers of the United States. There are lawful Jural Societies promoting common law juries (24 men) in every state and most counties. Readers are likely unfamiliar with these facts, but they are widely known. It is no wonder they are not publicized.

Because it is so confusing, the burden of identifying the actual LAWFUL entity is not on the people. It is on the actors themselves, if properly challenged. The supreme court has clarified the challenge: demand evidence of holding lawful office. Put the burden on the ones who come to you under color of law and demand obedience to their regulations WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE APPLY TO YOU.

If one asks permission of an agency, he does so in the form of an application for benefits or consent. This application is set to operate ONLY on the fictional territorial venue that the federal government lives in, and does not consider whether their conduct is constitutional or not.

It is a presumption by the government agencies that you are a citizen of their private, foreign territory called “United States”, and that you voluntarily subject yourself to their private, foreign jurisdiction OUTSIDE your protected rights. You MUST rebut that presumption, and you cannot do it by filling our any of their corporate forms or going into their foreign, private courts.

My “solution” is to establish evidence that you are a man, not a fictional corporate entity with a FULL CAPITAL NAME, and that you do not have any known legal relationship with any other version of your given name. And that you are conducting your affairs OUTSIDE their territorial jurisdiction, and that you demand that their officers produce evidence of their actual lawful existence and authority over you and your private business. If you establish that your existence and your business is found only on the soil of the organic State, the foreign jurisdiction of the feds cannot touch you there. The procedure for establishing this admissible evidence is not addressed in this article.

It is very simple. But also a very complicated learning curve to be able to pull it off. I am not aware of ANYONE in Baker County who has established his identity, character, capacity, legal standing, and venue OUTSIDE the “federal zone” in making a claim or defending a charge by the usurpers.

The simple fact is that federal power cannot exist outside the territories in the absence of your consent or acquiescence, and it must be knowing and voluntary!

This is getting to be too long, but I need to address some other issues brought out in the conference.

Tamra Mabbott from Umatilla County discussed State Agency Coordination, as required by state statutes. A word about “Oregon Revised Statutes” is appropriate here, because the ORS is NOT LAW. It is merely a REVISED version of a law. There is no constitutionally-required enacting clause attached to the statutes, and they are PRIVATE and apply only to employees of the State and to those who volunteer to obey them. Their status is that of a mere “suggestion”, and non-employees are not bound to obey them or to be subject to their jurisdiction. The same with Oregon Administrative Rules. The Risk Management department does not insure the use of these private statutes because they are NOT LAW and they do not apply to everyone.

Attorney Dave Erisman told the audience “Don’t leave presumptions unchallenged!” With the above information arming the reader with insightful facts, his advice needs to be taken very seriously.

Speakers discussed upcoming Senate Bills that would affect mining and land use. It must be remembered that Bills passed by the legislative assembly are turned into “Revised” statutes.

If the reader refuses to participate in the mechanizations of a process regulating an otherwise lawful endeavor, such as your inherent RIGHT to extract minerals from the public domain without submitting yourself to an outside federal authority that will obey the whims of its master, the IMF, then I say that it is possible to do so. But great care must be taken to ensure that the reader/actor set himself soundly in LAW and clearly outside the fraudulent jurisdiction of federal color-of-law.

We will discuss how to deal with de facto officers, pretending to be lawful and constitutional, at a later time.


1 Comment

Posted by on February 6, 2015 in Constitution Education, General


One response to “More on Dealing With Federal and “State” Jurisdiction

  1. Jake

    February 9, 2015 at 8:05 am

    While the masses foolishly believe that the courts are enforcing legislative morality (or the lack thereof) on the STATES by upholding gay marriage (the Supremes just cleared the way for Alabama), the truth is that morality and ethical rights have NOTHING to do with their decision. It isn’t nor ever was a moral issue for the states. They merely see this as another way to create legal fictions for commercial reasons under which they can control, regulate, manipulate, and tax. Under certification of marriage, USA Inc and The State of Whatever Inc, controls and owns this new revenue bearing financial asset that is traded and marketed (just like your birth certificate).

    Its not about anyone’s “right” to be gay. They never cared about that. They merely want to expand the definition of marriage to increase the number of corporately controlled fictions to expand their empire under Uniform Commercial Code and Admiralty. And everyone out there thinks that its a social issue. Ha! Silly people.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s