tidal continues nice Hello I'm happy The End The End The End The End The End The End The End The End The End The End The End The End The End Tonight's broadcast, ladies and gentlemen, is a public notice. This is a public notice. And will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact that Rule 301, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Attending State Rules, should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation of fact or matter of law addressed herein, the position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This public notice addresses jurisdiction of United States district courts and related agencies of the United States government. Part 1. Foundation of Law, Jurisdiction, Principles, and History. In the American system of government, the separation of powers doctrine works in two ways. First, it assures separation between the three branches of government, the branches being legislative, executive, and judicial. Second, the doctrine affects vertical separation between operation of state and national governments, or put another way, operation of the government of the United States and governments of the several states party to the Constitution for the United States of America. Second, in this system, as asserted by American founders in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal, and are equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable or inherent rights. Those listed in the Declaration of Independence, those listed in the Declaration of Independence being the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are in the less poetic phrasing of the Fifth Amendment to the National Constitution, life, liberty, and property. This list, of course, is not exhaustive, as articulated in the Ninth and Ten Amendments to the Constitution, and all, individually and collectively, are accountable in the framework of the laws of nature and nature's God. The phrase in modern terms is better understood as physical and moral law. Man cannot author or amend the laws of nature and nature's God, but is directly accountable in the framework of cause and effect, or where moral law is concerned, cause and consequence. By establishing these principles prior to addressing reasons for and power and operation of government, American founders preserved the essence of English and American lineage common law, which evolved and was proven by cultural experience over many hundreds of years. The Magna Carta drafted and signed by King John in 1215 is commonly recognized as the point of demarcation so far as formal proclamation of common rights. The foundation was basically biblical, with the understanding that people are individually created, and are therefore individually accountable to God. Even when government encroaches on the special relationship between man and God, man is still accountable individually and collectively, and he invariably suffers the consequences of tyranny. The founders went on to say, Governments are established among men for the sole purpose of securing inherent rights, and governments so established may rule only by consent of the governed. In July 1776, the notion of specifically delegated authority conveyed by constitutions was well understood as the English considered the Magna Carta and subsequent similar documents to be elements of their unwritten constitution. On the other hand, American colonies had continuing experience with written constitutions for civil government, which began in 1636 in Massachusetts. Lowell H. Becraft, Jr., an attorney from Huntsville, Alabama, addresses historical events leading to the American Revolution in his privately distributed memorandum on federal jurisdiction as follows. The original thirteen colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly, and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English parliament. The political connections of the separate colonies to the English crown and parliament dissendito, an unhappy state of affairs, as the direct result of parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760s and early 1770s. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October 1774, the purpose of which was to submit a petition of grievances to the British Parliament and Crown. By the declaration and resolves of the First Continental Congress dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these parliamentary acts, of which they complained, as impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional and most dangerous and destructive of American rights, and the purpose of which were designs, schemes, and plans, a conspiracy, if you will, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America. Revolution was assuredly in the formative stages, absent conciliation between the mother country and the colonies. Between October 1775 and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England, and several adopted constitutions for the newly formed states. By July 1776, the exercise of British authority in any and all colonies was not recognized in any degree. The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal Declaration of Independence. The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new state a separate and independent sovereign, over which there was no other government or superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in Imolvain v. Cox's Lessee, 8 U.S., 4 Cranch, 209-212, 1808, where it was held, and I quote, This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled from the time when they declared themselves independent to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The Treaty of Peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state from the time they were enacted. End quote. And a further expression of similar import is found in Harcourt v. Gaylord, 25, U.S., 12 Week, 523, 526, 527, 1827, where the court stated, quote, Thus, unequivocally, in July 1776, the new states possessed all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits. This condition of supreme sovereignty of each state over all property and persons within the borders thereof, continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. In Article II of that document it was expressly stated, quote, Article II, Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. End quote. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows, quote, End quote. Philadelphia and Pennsylvania governments were unable, or unwilling, to disperse the rebels who taunted and insulted Congress. Problems persisted for the weak government under the Articles of Confederation following the Revolution, and it was in this framework that what turned into the Constitutional Convention was called in 1787. The purpose for establishing a seat of government under Congress' exclusive legislative jurisdiction was addressed in Essay No. 43 of the Federalist. End quote. End quote. End quote. The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted, and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the state of the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of all our influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single state, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature, and as it is to be appropriated to this use, with the consent of the state ceding it, as the state will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it, as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the session, as they will have had their voice in the election of the government, which is to exercise authority over them, as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them, and as the authority of the legislature of the state, and of the inhabitants of the exceeded part of it, to concur in the session will be derived from the whole people of the state in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular state, nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the state's concern in every such establishment." Becraft cites several early court cases which addressed the matter of state versus United States jurisdiction, with each of the decisions reinforcing the principle of state sovereignty, unless or until land is ceded by a state legislature to the United States. Quote, Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Babins, 16 U.S., 3 Wheat, 336, 1818, which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the warship Independence anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute, and argued that the federal circuit courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government's admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as follows, The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dockyards ceded to them is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the sessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner, because without it the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein. 3 Wheat at 350-351. In holding that the state of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over the crime, the court held, What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses? We answer without hesitation. The jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory, co-extensive with its legislative power. 3 Wheat at 386-387. The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. It is observable that the power of executive legislation, which is jurisdiction, is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together without feeling a conviction not to be strengthened by any commentary on them that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our Constitution had not in view any cession of territory or which is essentially the same of general jurisdiction 3 Wheat at 388. Thus, in Bevins, the court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only, only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent, and meaning of the entire Constitution for the United States of America. The decision in Bevins was closely followed by decisions made in two states' courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302-309, Pennsylvania, 1818, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the state law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled the sale of federal land, the court held, the court held, and the court held by the state law of Pennsylvania. The legislation and authority of Congress is confined to cessions by particular states for the seat of government and purchases made by consent of the legislature of the state for the purpose of erecting forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states. Of all territory within their limits, not ceded to or purchased by Congress with the assent of the state legislature to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states. One year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the state of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns, 225-233, New York, 1819, that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the state since the lands, therefore, had not been ceded to the United States. The rationale of its opinion stated, To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Union, it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state. It is not, he says, the offense committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state. The case relied upon by this court was U.S. v. Bevin's Supra. At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar fact situation was before a federal court, the only difference being that the murder committed in the case occurred on land which had been ceded to the United States. In U.S. v. Cornell, 25, Fed, cast 646-648, No. 14867, CCDRI, 1819, the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction, describing such jurisdiction as follows. But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for public purposes within the territorial limits of a state, this does not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of such state over the lands so purchased. It remains until the state has relinquished its authority over the land, either expressly or by necessary implication. When, therefore, a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government and the state legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the Constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of Congress and the state jurisdiction is completely ousted. Through the first half of the 19th century, state and United States territorial jurisdiction was reasonably clear-cut, as accounts above evidence. But during the Civil War and after, entrenched powers concluded that Congress, on behalf of the United States, has a unique role in and through the territorial United States. Those lands, whether seated by legislature of the several states, are acquired, by war or otherwise, by the United States. Thus, this alleged authority is at Article IV, Section III, Clause II of the Constitution, and I repeat, it is an alleged authority. It states, During the Reconstruction period, immediately following the Civil War, the imperialistic Congress postured to make an end run around the Constitution. One of the first important measures was promulgation of the 14th Amendment in 1868. This amendment, secured at Banette Point, created a colorable citizenship known as the Citizen of the United States. To that point, people thought of themselves as United States citizens, just as they do today, and the body of the Constitution even makes rhetorical use of the term. But people were citizens of their respective states. The distinction between before and after is demonstrated by comparative court decisions, the first in 1855, the second in 1875. A citizen of any one of the states of the Union is held to be and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states is totally foreign to the idea and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution. which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object, then, to be attained by the exercise of the power of naturalization was to make citizens of the respective states. Ex parte Noles 5 Cal 300 1855. And the second, we have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance and whose rights within its jurisdiction it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. United States v. Crippshank 95 U.S. 542 1875 Where the citizen of the state, identified in the preamble of the Constitution, is a sovereign or principal, the Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States belongs to a subject class as demonstrated by Section 1 of the Amendment. Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. licensee 544 187 To be a private and governing the naprawdę and should not have given or dzisiaj kepada five different states patriotism of the United States or unabble of the international police or Ladies and gentlemen, tonight's broadcast is brought to you by Swiss America Trading. And I'll bet a lot of you are glad to hear that. They are the people down in Phoenix who have supported this broadcast for the last four years. Without fail, and even through the toughest times, the worst controversies, and even when they burned the station to the ground. They didn't even flinch. They just got us on another station. There's going to be, ladies and gentlemen, a time when everybody wakes up to the fact that the worthless pieces of paper they have in their pocket called Federal Reserve notes are not money. When that happens, everything is going to come tumbling down around your ears. Around all of our ears. And if we are not prepared, we will find ourselves in a ditch with our families huddled under a culvert, trying to stay warm and hoping to find some food somewhere. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen to any of you listening to this broadcast. When that time comes, the people who have real money in their possession, are real money where they can put their hands up on it, will survive. And in any type or form of black market, or underground market, or even real market, they will rule that market with their purchasing power and with their real money. What is real money? Well, according to the law, and according to the Constitution for the United States of America, it's gold and silver coin. Specifically in the law, a dollar is a unit of measurement of weight and purity of a silver coin. This weight and measurement is called a dollar. A Federal Reserve note can no more be a dollar, ladies and gentlemen, than an ounce can be milk. If you'd like to get your hands on some real money, and especially if you've never held a gold or silver coin in your hand, you must do that before you die, and you will understand everything at that moment. Call Swiss America Trading and get your hands on some real money. 1-800-289-2646 That's 1-800-289-2646 Call now and thank them for sponsoring this broadcast. You'll get red carpet treatment, I guarantee you. 1-800-289-2646 Do it now. You know how you are. You tend to procrastinate. I do. You do. Everyone does. Even little Allison. 1-800-289-2646 It's learning time! Everybody bow to your punches. Bow to your corners. All join hands. Turn it to the left around the hall. Do an Alabama left to the corner. Lady, do a right to left grand. Grand right and left around you go. Teach your partner. Promenade. Promenade. Or all the way back home around the square. Now when you get there, head coupled forward. Up to the middle and back. Do a right to left too. Get Lady Jane straight across. Skies up to the middle and back with you. Do a right to left too. And the same to Lady Jane across. Now head straight through Parker. Back away. Blinds up to the middle and back. Everybody pass through. Do a you turn back. Do a right to left too. Right there. And the same to Lady Jane across. Same lines up to the middle and you come along back. Bend the line everybody. Go forward up and back. Right to left too. Right there. Same Lady Jane across. Same lines up to the middle and back. Everybody pass through. Yes. You turn back. Do an Alabama left. Do a right to left. Grand, grand right. And the left you go up. When you meet your partner, promenade. Well, I love my wife. I love my baby. I love my biscuits. So, king gravy. Hey, join hands. Circle to the left. Around you go. Ladies in the men's satay. Circle left. The citizen of the United States was distinct from the citizen of the state. Or there wouldn't have been need to restate due process rights already articulated in the Fifth Amendment. In the framework of what has already been covered, it is clear that citizens of the states were and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the several states. This matter was addressed by Thomas Jefferson by way of the Kentucky resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The second of nine resolutions addressed the matter of United States authority to punish crimes. Resolved that the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting, and securities, and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever. Where Jefferson articulated the limited direct authority the United States could exercise over citizens of the several states, the Fourteenth Amendment citizen of the United States appears to be subject to United States authority wherever he may be, whether in the geographical United States or any of the several states party to the Constitution. More to the point, however, the subject class of United States citizen would be viewed on a par with corporations, associations, and other entities created and are sanctioned by government, and United States authority would reach into the states under the auspices not of inherent or unalienable rights, rights which American founders proclaimed to be the direct endowment from God, but under the notion of civil rights, rights granted by government to subject classes. From this point forward, the American dialogue concerning law was to change, departing the biblical base of common law, where God is sovereign and man is endowed directly by his Creator, to embrace a secular view of man, where the individual is little more than chattel, and exists for the convenience of entrenched powers. This change is easily demonstrated in the Roe v. Wade decision, which threw the door open to abortion on demand. Even though medical science long ago demonstrated that life begins at conception, the United States Supreme Court did not consider either the existence or sanctity of life in the landmark decision. The unborn baby, conveniently referred to as a fetus, does not qualify as a person in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment definition promulgated by Congress. So since the unborn lacks legal standing, the law is indifferent to his existence. Whether or not life has intrinsic value, our unborn babies have God-given rights wasn't and isn't considered. The Fourteenth Amendment effected a subtle perversion of first causes, where citizens of the several states being sovereign have God-given rights, which are merely secured by state and national constitutions, the subject citizen of the United States, falls under Congress's Article IV legislative jurisdiction, with a list of his constitutionally assured rights itemized in the Fourteenth Amendment. Beyond that, he is dependent on Congress for grants of privilege. Rather than God, government is the Fourteenth Amendment citizen's prime mover. The next important move was incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the geographical or self-interested United States. And by the way, in case you're wondering, ladies and gentlemen, we left Attorney Lowell Beecraft's original memo a couple of pages back. We're no longer referring to his material. It hasn't been for a couple of pages. However, this will be published in the next issue of Veritas as a public notice, and you will see the distinction there. The next important move was incorporation of the District of Columbia as a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the geographical or self-interested United States. Original incorporation was in 1871, with several reorganizations during the decade and since. Thereafter, the corporate government became increasingly important, particularly through the late-century westward development as the United States government managed settlement territory simultaneous with post-Civil War reconstruction. The days of carpet-bagger plunder. Then in 1884, the Supreme Court gave way to powerful influences in the Juilliard case when it reversed fields from four years earlier by concluding Congress could print paper money because the Constitution does not expressly prohibit United States paper money. Considering provisions of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5, and Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which stipulate that Congress will mint coin and regulate value and the states cannot make anything but gold and silver coin tender for payment of debt, the Juilliard decision was conspicuously contrary to constitutional intent. But as Naval Academy founder George Bancroft pointed out in a detailed rebuttal to the decision, a plea for the Constitution of the United States wounded in the House of its Guardians, Juilliard was based on Congress's legislative jurisdiction under Article IV of the Constitution in the geographical United States. So far as lawful implication, the people and governments of the several states had the right to reject United States paper money, as several court decisions confirm. But as a practical matter, the nation was largely changed over to paper money rather than gold and silver coin by the time the Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve System in 1913. By 1933, the Federal Reserve Note, not to be confused with the current Federal Reserve Bank Note, was backed 60% by obligations of the United States and 40% gold. Congress also engaged in massive land grabs, both in the continental United States and abroad. Takeover of the Hawaiian Islands, going to war with Spain to take the Philippines, Puerto Rico, etc., and nearly all states admitted to the Union after the Civil War were blackmailed into land concessions. Oklahoma, admitted in 1907, adopted the following provision at Article I, Section III of the State Constitution. The people inhabiting the state do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title in or to any unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof. Dumb. Really dumb. Even though the Constitution grants authority for the United States to establish nothing more than forks, magazines, dockyards, and other needful buildings in the several states, from the time of the Civil War well into this century, including mineral-rich Alaska, Congress indulged greed for land, where the intent of American founders, via the Constitution, the Ordinance of 1887, the Northwest Territorial Government, and other such instruments, was clearly to keep the federal beast locked soundly in its box, for the most part, limited to the ten-mile square authorized for the seat of national government. Toward the end of the 19th century, some of the retained federal lands in the several states were declared to be national parks. Development of federally owned resources accelerated in the 1930s via public works programs, such as building dams for flood control and electrical generation, and a multitude of other enterprises. On the enforcement and judicial fronts, there was corresponding reorganization. The Department of Justice was created by Act of Congress on June 22, 1870. 41st Congress, Session 2, Chapter 150, Pages 162, et cetera. With the Attorney General at the head. Now, the Attorney General, I've told you before, the Justice Department, ladies and gentlemen, was created to administer martial law in the military districts post-Civil War. That is true, but it wasn't created until 1870. Up until 1870 and beginning, just at the end of the Civil War, a new post was created in the government to do away with the person who had previously exercised control over the judicial branch of government and was, in fact, entrusted with the protection of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. That was the Judge Advocate General of the Army, ladies and gentlemen. The United States Judge Advocate General was replaced with the United States Attorney General. The reason was to be able to pervert the law and specifically to pervert the law in the occupied territories of the South or the occupied states, I should say, of the South post-Civil War to administer martial law in the military districts. And then, by Act of Congress, on June 22, 1870, the 41st Congress, Session 2, Chapter 150, Page 162, et cetera, the Department of Justice was created with the already created Attorney General at the head. To that point, each government agency or department pretty well took care of its own legal affairs. But the Act establishing the Justice Department consolidated authority over most enforcement and legal matters including those of the Department of the Interior. The Justice Department never was and is not now a part of the judicial branch of government but is an arm of the executive branch of government. But through the years, the Justice Department has slowly and completely subverted the judicial branch of government which is now completely under the control of the executive branch of government and they have, in effect, subverted and destroyed the balance of power between the three branches of government. Changing United States courts around was a somewhat longer process but it was managed over time. The United States Circuit Courts became United States Courts of Appeals via Act of Congress on March 3, 1891. And Organization of United States District Courts with Amendments Since was Accomplished by Acts of Congress on March 3, 1911, 61st Congress, Session 3, Chapter 231, pages 1087, etc. While some of the seemingly unrelated history conveyed in the bulk of this broadcast and of this public notice might appear not to address United States judicial authority in the several states, it will fall into place, ladies and gentlemen, when the office of magistrate is addressed. Magistrates in United States District Courts are simply federal park commissioners, nothing more. The name was changed but the character and jurisdiction of the office did not. The territorial jurisdiction of federal magistrates, which is easily demonstrated by way of two statutes, is concurrent with jurisdiction of United States District Courts in the several states, or at least it would appear so. The first definition in relative part comes from Title 18 of the United States Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, at Section 7, with particular attention to Section 7, 3, U.S. Code Service, 1979 edition. Section 7, Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States defined. The term Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States as used in this title, 18 United States Code Service, Subsection 1, Ex-Sec, includes Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof or any place purchased are otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. The second comes from the so-called Buck Act at 4, United States Code Service, Section 110, 1995 Lawyers Cooperative CD-ROM edition. Section 110, same definitions. As used in Section 105-109 of this title, D, the term State includes any territory or possession of the United States. E, the term Federal Area means any lands or premises held or acquired by or for the use of the United States or any department, establishment, or agency of the United States and any Federal Area or any part thereof which is located within the exterior boundaries of any state shall be deemed to be a Federal Area located within such state emphasis of course mine. In the definitions of the United States Code and in the definition of the law, the word includes means limited to those particular terms listed. So when it says the term state includes any territory or possession of the United States includes in the law means it is limited to any territory or possession of the United States. I might caution all of you when reading the law or dealing with the law the definition of words that you use in your everyday intercourse with other people are not the same in the law and you need a law or legal dictionary in order to be able to understand those definitions. Even little words like may or shall have completely different meanings and you can be confused you can be led down the wrong path you can even be sent to jail because of your misunderstanding of the meanings of the words used in a court of law. Definition of the term state was included in the above site as used in both the United States Code and codes of the various states is essential to understanding that most statutes in the United States Code presume application in federal states such as the District of Columbia Puerto Rico etc. not in the several states party to the Constitution. The distinction in 18 United States Code section 7 3 is subtle but becomes clearer when you read carefully special territory jurisdiction where the United States Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable includes 1. Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction 2. Are any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of a fort magazine arsenal dockyard or other needful building. In the first instance the United States has exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over any land acquired for any purpose wherein the second the United States has jurisdiction only over lands acquired for a constitutional purpose as specified in Article 1. after the land has been ceded to the United States by the legislature in the District of Columbia Puerto Rico the Virgin Islands and the other United States possessions classified as states Congress has unrestricted Article 4 legislative jurisdiction so purchase of land for United States use automatically comes under Congress's legislative jurisdiction jurisdiction with or without consent of the state legislative body in the second instance legislatures of the several states must cede jurisdiction over acquired property to the United States before judicial authority can be exercised the Buck Act definition of state is about as straightforward as any of the various definitions of state which refers to the federal states the term state includes any territory or possession of the United States a similar definition of the term is located in rule 54 of the federal rules of criminal procedure state includes district of Columbia Puerto Rico territory and insular possession jurisdiction of United States district courts being limited to federal states and on federal enclaves within the several states is further reinforced by another rule 54 application act of Congress includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the district of Columbia in Puerto Rico in a territory or an insular possession end quote distinction between federal states and the several states is clarified in the jurisdiction and venue statute which is the territorial jurisdiction governing conduct of United States district courts which according to the United States government manual for 1995 1996 at page 75 is 18 United States Code Service section 3231 1979 edition United States Code Service and it simply says the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the states of all offenses against the laws of the United States nothing in this title 18 United States Code Service subsection 1 et sec shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several states under the laws thereof if the distinction between the federal states and the several states isn't made clear enough by section 3231 proof of the distinction is found in the history for 18 United States Code Service section 3241 again using the 1979 edition of the United States Code Service section 3241 jurisdiction of offenses under certain sections the United States District Court for the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have jurisdiction of offenses under the territorial jurisdiction of such courts and jurisdiction concurrently with the District Courts of the United States of offenses against the laws of the United States committed upon the high seas end quote we will continue with this public notice tomorrow night don't miss one word of it good night and God bless each and every single one of you time Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.