Complaint: The BLM Can’t Own Land in Oregon

COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION

We the People

Plaintiffs

v.

The “UNITED STATES, INC” unlawfully

Operating as the Federal Government.

Defendant

WRIT OF GRIEVANCES AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

We the People Decree in this WRIT OF GRIEVANCES all said unconstitutional administrative acts of the Bureau of Land Management null and void and declare all such subversives enemies of the Peoples of the United States of America as follows:

18 U.S. Code §2385 WHOEVER ORGANIZES OR HELPS OR ATTEMPTS TO ORGANIZE ANY SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS WHO TEACH, ADVOCATE, OR ENCOURAGE THE OVERTHROW OR DESTRUCTION OF ANY SUCH GOVERNMENT3 BY FORCE OR VIOLENCE; OR BECOMES OR IS A MEMBER OF, OR AFFILIATES

WITH, ANY SUCH SOCIETY, GROUP, OR ASSEMBLY OF PERSONS [BAR], KNOWING THE PURPOSES THEREOF – SHALL BE FINED UNDER THIS TITLE OR IMPRISONED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, OR BOTH…

WE THE PEOPLE, sovereigns by the Rights of the Creator, DECREE with this negative averment a list of Grievances and Declaration of offenses committed by the overreaching Federal[1] Government operating in and through its unconstitutional agency called the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the State of Oregon, January 2016.

We the People reject federal government propaganda issued by its mistress media and its disinformation campaign regarding the BLM and those known as “the Militia.” We declare the Oregon “Standoff” is not about the Bundys or the Hammonds, but about the willful, reckless, radical, offensive ultra vires acts of the Federal Government, anything contrary notwithstanding.

1. Is it not true that the People of Oregon are acting lawfully and that the Federal Government and their accomplices that are acting lawlessly?
2. Is it not true that Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 limits the Federal Governments power to own, possess, and manage land within the Continental united States?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority 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, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

3. Is it not true that the above clause is the ONLY authority granted by the People to the Federal Government to own land . . . and their authority to own land and manage it is limited to ten square miles now called Washington D.C.?

See lands unlawfully owned by the United States government.

3. Is it not true the Federal Government does not have authority to own any land in the states other than that which is “necessary”[2] and purchased for administrative buildings?
4. Is it not true the Federal Government does not have any authority to establish the BLM unless its authority is limited to the District of Columbia?
5. Is it not true that “to own” “necessary” land within a continental state is dependent on the consent of de jure state legislatures (non-corporate)?
6. Is it not true a state legislature has authority to say “No” to the federal government and to deny them “presence” and “permission to own land” within the state’s geographical boundaries?
7. Is it not true that Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 does grant power to dispose and make needful Rules and Regulations over the “Territory” and “Property” belonging to the United States?

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

9. Is it not true that Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 can NOT contradict Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the original constitution?
10. Is it not true the word “Territory” in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 is capitalized as a proper noun with a specific meaning?
11. Is it not true that a territory does not have statehood status, and that a de jure state cannot be both a “state” and “U.S. territory” at the same time?
12. Is it not true the United States Federal Government cannot and does not own any “Territory” in the Continental United States?
13. Is it not true that a “Territory” is not land the government owns, but land the government holds in trust for the states, or the People?
14. Is it not true that the United States only has sovereignty over 14 territories, of which five of them have a permanent, non-military population known as American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico while nine of them (the United States Minor Outlying Islands) do not?
15. Is it not true that when a “Territory” petitions to become a “state” and is accepted as such, it is NO LONGER A TERRITORY?
16. Is it not true that once a “Territory” petitions to become a “state” and is accepted as such that the state becomes an independent, sovereign government; that is, part of the “free and Independent States” (the Declaration of Independence)?
17. Is it not true that the “Equal-Footing Doctrine” is a “principle of Constitutional law that mandates that new states be admitted to the Union as equals of the existing states, in terms of power, sovereignty, and freedom. States must be admitted on an equal footing in the sense that Congress may not exact conditions solely as a tribute for admission” excepting constitutional requirements and limitations?[3]
18. Is it not true that it impossible to be a “Territory” and a “state”[4] at the same time?
19. Is it not true a “Territory” cannot be sovereign, but is, in fact a subject, duty bound to obey its Master, the Federal Government?
20. Is it not true that once a “Territory” petitions to become a “state” and is accepted as such the Federal Government no longer has authority over it, cannot own land within it without the permission of the state, and can’t make “Rules” and “Regulations” to govern the new state?
21. Is it not true the Federal Government has no authority over any land within a state except limited acreage used “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”?
22. Is it not true there is no authority in the Constitution for the BLM to govern land in the states not used as “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”?
23. Is it not true there is NO AUTHORITY for the Federal Government to tell, order, demand, or legislate to the states how to operate or manage their land?
24. Is it not true no President has the power of the PEN to create an executive order mandating how a state should manage its land?
25. Is it not true Congress cannot create “Rules” and “Regulations” mandating how the states are to manage their land?
26. Is it not true there is no PEN or PHONE or POLITICIAN big enough to altar the original Constitution?
27. Is it not true the Federal Government (Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch) cannot give itself authority by vote or a stroke of the PEN or “Congressional Act” to enlarge its powers outside of Amendment V Process because of the limits of power placed on the Federal Government by We the People?
28. Is it not true the Federal Government has enlarged its powers like the BLM under color of authority, color of law, and color of propriety because of the ignorance and weakness of the American People at Large?
29. Is it not true that every president, congressman, and judge in every state is duty bound to limit its administration by Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

30. Is it not true, that in regards to the Constitution, “any Thing,” Rule or Regulation or “executive order” by the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary, “Contrary” to the Constitution “notwithstanding”?
31. Is it not true that Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist Paper No. 33 that “No legislativeact,therefore,contrary to theConstitution,can be valid”?
32. Is it not true, therefore, that land “ownership” by the Federal Government and the management thereof by the BLM in Oregon or any other state is unconstitutional, invalid, and therefore null and void?
33. Is it not true that a government that over reaches its constitutional powers to own land is not worthy of trust and must be resisted by whatever force necessary to restrain its lawless actions?
34. Is it not true that We the People gave Congress only 17-18 limited powers?
35. Is it not true that a government that owns land, creates agencies to control it, and to punish those who oppose ultra vires acts of the Federal Government through its own administrative courts is a lawless tyrant and bully?
36. Is it not true Congress cannot make laws creating an agency to regulate Federal Property in the states because such power was never given to this legislative body in the Constitution?
37. Is it not true that because the states are grantors of the federal contract, the drafters of the contract, and the ratifiers of the contract, that the States, and therefore, the People, are the ultimate arbitrators of the Constitution?
38. Is it not true “the several states” (and by implication the people of “the several states”), as the sovereign source of the Federal Constitution, had the “unquestionable right” to judge infractions of that Constitution and “that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy”?
39. Is it not true that if the states are the creators of the federal government, they are the controllers of the federal government?
40. Is it not true that the Supreme Court which claims to be the ultimate arbitrator of the Constitution cannot create an opinion that expands its own power such as the following statement: “The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States” (http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx)?
41. Is it not true that when the Supreme Court expands its own power and declares itself to be the ultimate arbitrator of its own authority, we have an oligarchy[5], not a constitutional republic?
42. Is it not true that a just government will protect the citizens in both their rights of property and their property in rights; that when the Federal Government grants to itself the right to own property that freedom is assailed (James Madison, “Property,” March 29, 1792, Heritage Foundation Primary Sources, http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/madison-on-property.?
43. Is it not true that a just government derives its powers by the consent of the governed and that when it grants to itself powers to own land not authorized in the Constitution, it is no longer a just government, but a tyrant?
44. Is it not true that if the Federal Government is not bound by its Constitution contract and the limits placed on it by the People, then there is no power that can humble the Leviathan State other than Almighty God and His instruments?
45. Is it not true that if the Federal government is not limited by the Constitution, there is NO LIMIT to Federal power?
46. Is it not true that if the Federal Government is not defined and limited by the Constitution, then there is no such thing as the rule of law[6] but only a rule by law[7]?
47. Is it not true that free men have control over their property?
48. Is it not true that if the Federal Government can tell you how and when to use your land, you are no longer free, but a slave of a tyrannical Federal Plantation Owner?
49. Is it not true that if the Federal Government can tell you how and when to use your land, you are a mental, legal, physical slave absent leg irons and chains?
50. Is it not true that the Militia / Federal Standoff in Oregon is not about the Bundys or the Hammonds, but about standing up for the Constitution and restraining an overreaching Federal Government that has unlawfully enlarged its powers.
51. Is it not true that it is the duty of good Christian men to stand up and not stand down as Senator Ted Cruz and other “federal employees” are demanding?

LAWFULLY NOTICES Representatives of the UNITED STATES[8], INC. that any denial of s negative averment must be offered with an explanation and proof of claim; otherwise, all averments are considered true and not misleading.

We the People demand the Federal Government operating through the BLM stand down, release the Bundy’s and the Hammonds, and to return stolen property known as “Oregon’s Malheur Wildlife Refuge” back to the ranchers, respectively the People of Oregon; to vacate the land; and, to pay just compensation for the people’s loss of land, time, and money as well as damages for emotional stress and suffering.

We the People with All Rights Reserved,

__________________________

non-negotiable autograph(s),

(Drafter: Storm Brooks, Citizen, PHD) Posted 1/6/2016

 

[1] Federal: Webster’s, 1828 – “pertaining to a league or contract.”

[2] Needful or Necessary: that which is essential and imperative and crucial as opposed to “additional,” or “nonessential” or “extra” or “optional” or “coveted” or “craved,” or “desired.”

[3] See: http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/equal-footing-doctrine/

[4] Spelling like “state” or “State” or “STATE” or “state of New York” or “State of New York” or “New York State” or “NEW YORK STATE” or “STATE OF NEW YORK” are part of the semantic deception practiced by BAR contractors to keep the citizens in a state of confusion—no pun intended.

[5] Oligarchy: a rule by a few over the majority; the rule of a self-declared elite over the People.

[6] Rule of law: the principle that there are good, universal, defined principles that are to be obeyed, not only by the People, but by government officials. A government that exempts itself while requiring the obedience of the People acts like a tyrant.

[7] Rule by law: A government telling the people how to live while exempting themselves from the principle.

[8] UNITED STATES: Upon information and belief, the United Nations Corporation is organized by the International Monetary Fund, Inc., which organized the UNITED STATES, INC. – a French commercial corporation, to take over the governmental services contracts of the old United States of America, Inc.