150 Militia Take Over Makhuer National Wildlife Preserve Headquarters

[monty]

The government charged them for "Deer Poaching" (Which neither of them were convicted of mind you, they were convicted of arson) the Deer do not belong to the government and neither does the land. It's a bullshit charge and if you even bothered to read into the case you'll see the Hammonds have gotten the shit end of the stick for over 20 years.

Constitution lawyer, Larry Becraft wrote an article in News with Views about federal jurisdiction. He uses the Fish and Wildlife Service as an example.

Ammon Bundy has taken over the Fish and Wildlife reserve in the name of the people of Oregon. Asinine as MR posted, yes. The FBI is enroute and will be on th scene if not already there. Clearly they do not have jurisdiction. This property is not a territory nor is it an insular posssession. The fish and the wildlife belong to Oregon.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry.htm

JURISDICTION QUESTIONED
PART 1

By Attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft, Jr.
June 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

We suffer a plague of the acronymic alphabet agencies: DEA, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, FBI, TVA, IRS, BATF, ad nauseam. One may study the U.S. Constitution searching for the specific provision granting Congress authority over airplanes, telecommunications, securities as well as a wide variety of other matters and learn that Congress has apparently been denied authority over these subject matters.

This raises an extremely interesting question: where do we find the Constitutional authority for such agencies and the laws they administer?

By statute, all federal agencies must confine their activities to the jurisdiction delegated to them: see 5. U.S.C. §588. While this is a simply statutory command, there is an evident problem in that most federal agencies fail to publish any statements, either in the C.F.R. or some other source, which define their jurisdiction in clear and express terms.

The C.I.A. is one agency where it is easy to determine its jurisdiction because a statute has deprived it of any domestic jurisdiction; see Weissman v. C.I.A., 565 F.2d 692, 696 (D.C. Cir. 1977). However, to determine the jurisdiction of other agencies requires some study.

Perhaps the best way to determine the jurisdiction of any given federal agency is to examine various cases regarding the subject matter of that agency. For example, the United States Constitution does not provide that Congress has any authority concerning the fish and wildlife within this country and this has been previously litigated with obvious results. In McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 394- 95 (1877), the Supreme Court held regarding the fish within the oceans:

"[T]he States own the tidewaters themselves and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running." The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which, in respect to foreign and interstate commerce, has been granted to the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the state.....

http://www.newswithviews.com/images/...upport-NWV.gif

Like fish, the Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife within the states of this nation and this has been noted in several cases. A ready example of such a case is United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914), which concerned the issue of where the Migratory Bird Act of March, 1913, could apply.

Through this act, Congress sought to extend protection to migratory birds by limiting the hunting season and otherwise placing restrictions upon hunting of these birds. As is only natural, upon adoption of this act federal officials started enforcing it and here they had arrested Shauver in Arkansas for shooting migratory birds.

Shauver moved to dismiss the charges filed against him on the grounds that the act contravened the Tenth Amendment by invading the jurisdiction of the states upon a matter historically reserved for legislation by the states. In deciding that this act was unconstitutional, Judge Trieber noted that the common law provided that the states essentially owned the birds within their borders and state legislation was the sole source by which hunting could be controlled. In so concluding, he held:

"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional."

Notwithstanding Judge Trieber's decision, enforcement of the act did not stop and it was thereafter enforced within Kansas, where another man arrested for killing migratory birds. In United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288, 293 (D.Kan. 1915), the issue of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 was again before a different court and it, relying upon its own research of the law as well as the decision in Shauver, likewise concluded that this act was unconstitutional:

"[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game in this country resides in the states, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best."

The above decisions have never been overruled and they stand today as valid authority for the proposition that Congress under the Constitution does not have any direct grant of power to regulate and control fish and wildlife within our country.

If this is the case, you might ask what is the Constitutional basis upon which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been created and currently operates?

Part II and III, coming soon.

© 2004 Lowell Becraft - All Rights Reserved

[Ares]

Awesome read, thanks for that Monty!

[Ponce]

The FBI wants a "peaceful" solution......but have orders to destroy the ranch......well, maybe, just maybe........here we go.

V

[Ares]

The FBI wants a "peaceful" solution......but have orders to destroy the ranch......well, maybe, just maybe........here we go.

V

Ponce, how far away are you from this stand off?

[Ponce]

349.8 miles........


v

[Ares]

Definitely a bit of a drive then.. lol

[midnight rambler]

Perfect timing. How convenient this ill conceived plan is. Just plain stupid to challenge adrenaline charged testosterone cowboys who get a nut exercising their monopoly of force. As one cop friend advised me after Mt. Carmel, "They thumbed their nose at law enforcement and we just can't allow that."

http://www.infowars.com/oregon-stand...-control-push/

[mick silver]

but midnight 7th help by stop paying his taxes , so he's no longer part of the NWO . once you step out of line you will be called anti-government are white terrorists' as the niggar burn down city . I didnt hear what they were called

[7th trump]

Constitution lawyer, Larry Becraft wrote an article in News with Views about federal jurisdiction. He uses the Fish and Wildlife Service as an example.

Ammon Bundy has taken over the Fish and Wildlife reserve in the name of the people of Oregon. Asinine as MR posted, yes. The FBI is enroute and will be on th scene if not already there. Clearly they do not have jurisdiction. This property is not a territory nor is it an insular posssession. The fish and the wildlife belong to Oregon.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Becraft/larry.htm

JURISDICTION QUESTIONED
PART 1

By Attorney Lowell (Larry) Becraft, Jr.
June 22, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

We suffer a plague of the acronymic alphabet agencies: DEA, FDA, FAA, FCC, SEC, FBI, TVA, IRS, BATF, ad nauseam. One may study the U.S. Constitution searching for the specific provision granting Congress authority over airplanes, telecommunications, securities as well as a wide variety of other matters and learn that Congress has apparently been denied authority over these subject matters.

This raises an extremely interesting question: where do we find the Constitutional authority for such agencies and the laws they administer?

By statute, all federal agencies must confine their activities to the jurisdiction delegated to them: see 5. U.S.C. §588. While this is a simply statutory command, there is an evident problem in that most federal agencies fail to publish any statements, either in the C.F.R. or some other source, which define their jurisdiction in clear and express terms.

The C.I.A. is one agency where it is easy to determine its jurisdiction because a statute has deprived it of any domestic jurisdiction; see Weissman v. C.I.A., 565 F.2d 692, 696 (D.C. Cir. 1977). However, to determine the jurisdiction of other agencies requires some study.

Perhaps the best way to determine the jurisdiction of any given federal agency is to examine various cases regarding the subject matter of that agency. For example, the United States Constitution does not provide that Congress has any authority concerning the fish and wildlife within this country and this has been previously litigated with obvious results. In McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391, 394- 95 (1877), the Supreme Court held regarding the fish within the oceans:

"[T]he States own the tidewaters themselves and the fish in them, so far as they are capable of ownership while running." The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which, in respect to foreign and interstate commerce, has been granted to the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the state.....

http://www.newswithviews.com/images/...upport-NWV.gif

Like fish, the Constitution simply grants no authority to the federal government to control the wildlife within the states of this nation and this has been noted in several cases. A ready example of such a case is United States v. Shauver, 214 F. 154, 160 (E.D.Ark. 1914), which concerned the issue of where the Migratory Bird Act of March, 1913, could apply.

Through this act, Congress sought to extend protection to migratory birds by limiting the hunting season and otherwise placing restrictions upon hunting of these birds. As is only natural, upon adoption of this act federal officials started enforcing it and here they had arrested Shauver in Arkansas for shooting migratory birds.

Shauver moved to dismiss the charges filed against him on the grounds that the act contravened the Tenth Amendment by invading the jurisdiction of the states upon a matter historically reserved for legislation by the states. In deciding that this act was unconstitutional, Judge Trieber noted that the common law provided that the states essentially owned the birds within their borders and state legislation was the sole source by which hunting could be controlled. In so concluding, he held:

"All the courts are authorized to do when the constitutionality of a legislative act is questioned is to determine whether Congress, under the Constitution as it is, possesses the power to enact the legislation in controversy; their power does not extend to the matter of expediency. If Congress has not the power, the duty of the court is to declare the act void. The court is unable to find any provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress, either expressly or by necessary implication, to protect or regulate the shooting of migratory wild game in a state, and is therefore forced to the conclusion that the act is unconstitutional."

Notwithstanding Judge Trieber's decision, enforcement of the act did not stop and it was thereafter enforced within Kansas, where another man arrested for killing migratory birds. In United States v. McCullagh, 221 F. 288, 293 (D.Kan. 1915), the issue of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 was again before a different court and it, relying upon its own research of the law as well as the decision in Shauver, likewise concluded that this act was unconstitutional:

"[T]he exclusive title and power to control the taking and ultimate disposition of the wild game in this country resides in the states, to be parted with and exercised by the state for the common good of all the people of the state, as in its wisdom may seem best."

The above decisions have never been overruled and they stand today as valid authority for the proposition that Congress under the Constitution does not have any direct grant of power to regulate and control fish and wildlife within our country.

If this is the case, you might ask what is the Constitutional basis upon which the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has been created and currently operates?

Part II and III, coming soon.

© 2004 Lowell Becraft - All Rights Reserved

Seriously Larry Becraft?
That guy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag....his track record in court proves this.
Hes another moron who drank the cool aid having a license as a lawyer....two strikes against him!

[monty]

Awesome read, thanks for that Monty!

Perfect timing. How convenient this ill conceived plan is. Just plain stupid to challenge adrenaline charged testosterone cowboys who get a nut exercising their monopoly of force. As one cop friend advised me after Mt. Carmel, "They thumbed their nose at law enforcement and we just can't allow that."

http://www.infowars.com/oregon-stand...-control-push/

Infowars spun that as bad as the main stream media. There was no armed take over. The place was closed for the holidays. Several tv stations came and went during the day and interviewed Bundy. Pete Santilli live streamed it. I watched all three of the interviews. There were no armed militia types visible. Bundy was calm and cool.

As ill conceived as his plan was, it may open a small segment of the populations eyes regarding federal jurisdiction. Us old farts were taught that in high school. The first half of the year on state government, the last half on the Constitution and federal government. In those days the federal government was pretty careful not to get out of line. But like boiling frogs they little by little dumbed down the people and usurped jurisdiction. They started first by putting tags on pillows and mattresses "do not remove" under penalty of Federal Law. This had a psychological effect on the masses even though it didn't apply to them. The same with emission control devices on automobiles. Once a car was sold the owner could do anything he wanted that didn't violate his states emission control laws. As time went on the schools stopped teaching, people assumed the federal law applied to them.