Jurisdiction- How Ro Defend Rural America

8/11/2019 Jurisdiction- How Ro Defend Rural America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jurisdiction-how-ro-defend-rural-america 1/10

JurisdictionHow To Defend Rural America

by Kirk F. MacKenzie

Founder of Defend Rural AmericaTM

October 22, 2013

www.DefendRuralAmerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html

Level I. Assert Local Jurisdiction

Overview

Our forests, air quality, water quality, food quality,

recreational use of public lands, energy production,families, communities, counties, jobs, and prosperityare systematically being destroyed. The people closestto the problems!those that actually live and work onthe land!are acutely aware of this, yet increasinglyhave little say in the matter. The solution is tounderstand, reinvigorate, and apply jurisdiction, asdefined by the Constitution.

The authority to protect person and property falls onthe states, not the federal government.

“...within any state of this Union the preservation ofthe peace and the protection of person and propertyare the functions of the state government, and arenot part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation.! Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894)

Where there is a delegated authority, there is also aduty. The simplest exercise of jurisdiction is forcounties to exercise their authority to defend the health,safety, and welfare of their constituents. This authority

extends into the so-called “national forests.”

Our elected agents, state and local representatives owetheir highest and only loyalty to their constituents.They have no duty, nor authority, to enforce federalmunicipal laws; represent the interests of specialinterest groups or stakeholders; or to represent theinterests of owls, frogs, and toads.

1962 Eisenhower Report

The INVENTORY REPORT ON JURISDICTIONALSTATUS OF FEDERAL AREAS WITHIN THE STATES, As of June 30, 1962!also known as the EisenhowerReport!is sufficient to confirm state jurisdiction overlands commonly, but wrongly called “federal lands.” Afull copy can be found here. This study was undertakenand completed after most or all of the enabling acts.

Page 1 of 10 www.DefendRuralAmerica.com © 2013 Kirk F. MacKenzie. All rights reserved.

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Jurisdiction.html







Every federal agency was given the task to list every property in these United States! by county andstate!to which it claimed some sort of authority.Federal authority over each property was thenclassified into one of five categories:

• Category 1 Exclusive federal legislativeauthority. I call these lands the Federal Zone.

• Categories 2 and 3 Mixed federal and statelegislative authority

• Category 4 Defined below.

• Category 5 Those that could not be classified.

Category 4 was entitled Proprietorial Interest Only.Here is the definition. In other words, the States holdexclusive legislative authority over Category 4 lands.

“...the Federal Government has acquired some rightto an area in a State, but has not obtained anymeasure of the State’s authority over the area.”

According to a summary chart included in the report,728,489,393.3 (or 95%) of the total 770,735,115.3acres considered fall into the proprietorial jurisdiction category. They are under state jurisdiction.They are not federally-owned nor under federallegislative authority.

The report’s authors, with the concurrence of PresidentDwight Eisenhower, concluded and recommended thatfederal jurisdiction over our lands should be verylimited, consistent with the Constitution.

3.2 “With respect to the large bulk of federallyowned or operated real property in the severalStates and outside of the District of Columbia it isdesirable that the Federal Government not receive,or retain, any measure whatever of legislative jurisdiction, but that it hold the installations andareas in a proprietorial interest status only, withlegislative jurisdiction remaining in the severalStates.

These Maps AreWrong & Misleading

The following maps use red coloring to indicate landslabeled, incorrectly, as federal lands. These maps areall wrong, and highly misleading. Only 5% of the landsso designated as under federal legislative authority.

Jurisdiction: How To Defend Rural America




Apache County, Arizona

Provides Further Proof

THIS IS THE ACTUAL STORY OF A COUNTY INARIZONA THAT USED ITS KNOWLEDGE OFJURISDICTION TO PROTECT ITS COMMUNITIES.

ACTING ON LOCAL JURISDICTION

Doyel Shamley and others uncovered, studied, andacted upon the information they learned about federal jurisdiction. A resident of Apache County, Arizona,Shamley was able to get his county to pass tworesolutions in which his county asserted itsConstitutional right to start managing the forests in itsarea.

RESOLUTIONS

In its first resolution, the Apache County Board ofSupervisors asserted the County’s exclusive authorityover certain roads, rights-of-way and routes of travelon lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureauof Land Management. Here are a few excerpts:

“NOW THEREFORE, hereby be it resolved thatThe Board of Supervisors of Apache County herebyasserts its inherent right to control and manage the

roads, rights-of-way and routes of travel locatedwithin the United States Forest Service land andBureau of Land Management land located withinthe boundaries of Apache County but not located onany nationally recognized Indian reservation, tribaltrust land, or otherwise located on Indian Country;and ...

“BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that any existing physical obstructions, gates or other impedimentson any roads, rights-of-way or routes of travellocated on National Forest Service or Bureau ofLand Management lands be immediately removed.

The Apache County Sheriff is directed to ensure theremoval of such obstructions or to execute suchremovals at the expense of the persons or agenciesresponsible for their placement or maintenance.Placing or maintaining any unauthorized physicalobstruction, gate or other impediment on, in oraround any road, route of travel or right-of way inApache County as described herein so as to preventor impede the free use of that road, route of travel

or right-of-way is hereby designated a Class TwoMisdemeanor and punishable pursuant to Title 13 ofthe Arizona Revised Statutes ...”

In its second resolution, the County Board ofSupervisors declared a state of emergency regardingthe federal mismanagement of the local forests, anddeclared in no uncertain terms its intent to remedythese problems with or without the federalgovernment’s support. Here are the resolutions thatwere passed:

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board ofSupervisors of Apache County hereby formallydemands that State and Federal officials takeimmediate action to eliminate hazardous conditionsin and around the communities and watersheds inand around the Apache-Sitgreaves national Forest

and any other Federally Managed land in ApacheCounty, including the Wildland Urban interfaceareas identified as critical in the Apache CountyCommunity Wildfire Protection Plan; and

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board ofSupervisors of Apache County invoking theinherent police powers of the state hereby formallygives notice to all relevant State and Federalofficials that pursuant to its duty outlined above,after consulting with the State Forester and theRegional United States Forester, taking surveys,holding those public hearings as may be necessaryand developing a plan to mitigate the effects of thedisaster and as a county in which a disaster has beendeclared, we intend to unilaterally take such actionsas are necessary to clear and thin undergrowth andto remove or log fire-damaged trees within the areaof the disaster and to assess all attendant costs tothose agencies charged with wise management ofour forests and whose neglect has caused thedangerous conditions therein;

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that thisResolution be called immediately to the attention of

the Secretary of Agriculture, Arizona CongressionalDelegation, Governor Jan Brewer, the ArizonaLegislature and the Arizona Division of EmergencyManagement, and

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that theGovernor of the State of Arizona and the ArizonaDivision of Emergency Management are herebycalled upon in the name of the State of Arizona to



http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/AC01Res1.pdf










declare a State of Emergency and Disaster inApache County and its national forests effected bysevere drought conditions, high fire danger andcatastrophic losses caused by wild fires; and

“BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that United States

Forest Service personnel are hereby called upon toimmediately respond to the communication, consultation and coordination with, and provideimmediate notification to Apache County of alltheir activities, programs, planning, NEPA processes etc. having as their object to abate fireand flooding dangers in Apache County; and

“BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the ApacheCounty Board of Supervisors calls upon the U.S.Department of Agriculture, U.S. Congress, theArizona Legislature, and the Arizona Governor'soffice to immediately provide emergency funding to

accomplish tree thinning, timber sales, dead treeremoval, fuel-load reduction and livestock grazingto protect affected areas from catastrophic wildfire;and

“BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Board ofSupervisors of Apache County calls on State andFederal officials to immediately coordinate ameeting to address the issues raised by thisresolution; and

“BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Board ofSupervisors of Apache County calls upon the U.S.Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Congress toconduct an investigation to determine why therequirements of County, State and Federalordinances, laws and regulations are not beingroutinely followed in relation to public safety,recreation, wildfire and economic issues of ApacheCounty forest lands and other federally managedlands.

SUCCESS!!!

The County was not bluffing. It acted upon itsresolutions. Here are information and photos about thefirst project, and a related press release. The programwas a huge success, one in which the entire community participated and benefitted. The number of sawmills,for example, increased from zero to six. A second,much larger project is underway.

Doyel Shamley and others subsequently testified before the House Natural Resources Committee aboutthe Apache County story. The committee lauded the plan and held it up as the model for other counties andstates to follow.



http://www.co.apache.az.us/Departments/CountyManager/Stewardship.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/AC04PR.pdf


http://cronkitenewsonline.com/2012/07/apache-county-stewardship-program-cited-as-cure-for-disease-of-growing-wildfires/












Level II. Challenge Federal Jurisdiction

The counties have jurisdiction over so-called “federal

lands.” When jurisdiction, then, does the federalgovernment have? Answer: Far less than we have beenled to believe. Hold on to your seats, because this iswhere things get interesting.

Sovereignty

We start at the beginning. For nearly all of man’sexistence, the People have been made to be serfs orslaves to one master or another. The United States,uniquely, was founded on a very different principle,

namely, that the People are the sovereigns. Sovereignty is the authority to which there is politically no superior.

“In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established bythe Const i tu t ion. The Congress as theinstrumentality of sovereignty is endowed withcertain powers to be exerted on behalf of the peoplein the manner and with the effect the Constitutionordains. The Congress cannot invoke thesovereign power of the people to override theirwill as thus declared.” ! Perry v. United States,

294 U.S. 330 (1935)

We Are A Federation,

Not A Nation

We The People, as sovereigns, established a

federation of States (nations, countries, if you will) thatwould jointly work together on certain enumeratedmatters of mutual concern. A congress was establishedwherein representatives from these sovereign nationscould come together to discuss and resolve these issues.

We are a federation, not a nation. The proper use is“the United States of America are” not “the UnitedStates of America is.” This is a critical distinction, because it defines the war that has been waged sinceour nation was founded: decentralized government and personal freedom, or a centralized and ultimatelytotalitarian government.

The Pledge of Allegiance!that I have proudly given

since I was a child!

now appears to be part of thedeception that has led us to willingly, if unwittingly,accept subordination. It was first written in 1892 byFrancis Bellamy, an anti-capitalist socialist.

A correctly worded pledge would read:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of THESE UnitedStates, and to the republic for which THEY stand,one FEDERATION, under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

Government By

Consent Of The Governed

Ours is a constitutional government, that is to say, agovernment of the People, by the People, and for thePeople.

The Constitution For The United States was adeclaration by The People, not a two-party contract . Itdid not require the consent of the federal governmentwhich it created. We gave the federal government life,

and it has no authority or legitimacy beyond that whichwe delegated to it. These limitations are affirmed bythe Ninth and Tenth articles of the Bill of Rights. Wereserved the right to amend or abolish our centralgovernment as we deemed necessary.

Article I of the Constitution defines the legislativeauthority of Congress. It is from its legislativeauthority that all powers of !and limitations on!thecentral government arise. The remaining articles arethere to enforce!not expand!these enumerated andlimited duties.

Articles II and III establish Executive and Judicial branches to carry out those duties and to protect againstabuse.

Private Property

Prior to our formation, feudalism had been one of the primary means of control. Land belonged to the king.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=294&page=330







His rule was enforced by a hierarchy of anointed andself-proclaimed “nobles.” The People were made to bethe laborers, working the lands for the profit of theking and his nobles.

Our nation’s Founding Fathers understood a freehold is

essential to being a freeman. Accordingly, the People,as sovereigns, would own the lands, either collectivelyas public land , or individually as private property.

LAND PATENTS & PRIVATE PROPERTY

The goal, therefore, was to convert public property todebt- and lien-free private property, also called a freehold , fee simple, or allodial title.

This was accomplished by the issuance of Land Patents, signed by the Presidents in office at the time

of issuance. The issuance of land patents wasauthorized for different purposes, such as theHomestead Acts, the first of which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on May 20, 1862.Under the Homestead Acts, a portion of public landwas given free to homesteaders provided they were atleast age 21, and had lived on the land, built a home,made improvements, and farmed it for a minimum offive years.

The enabling language in Land Patents contains wordssimilar or identical to the following:

“Now Know Ye, that there is therefore granted bythe United States unto the said [person’s name] thetrack of land above described: To Have and to Holdthe said tract of land, with the appurtenancesthereof, unto the said [person’s name] and to hisheirs and assigns forever: subject to [limitations, ifany].”

Forever means forever. Once granted, the land was toremain private property and never revert to governmentland (i.e., the king’s land).

CALIFORNIA!S CONSTITUTION

California’s Constitution affirms the right to property.

“All people are by nature free and independent andhave inalienable rights. Among these are enjoyingand defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing

and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”! California Constitution, Article I, Section I

“A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws.” ! California Constitution,Article I, Section 7(a)

MARXISM

Opposition to freeholds and freemen did not end withthe Revolutionary War. Rather, the tyrants continuedtheir pursuit of controlling the world and everyone in itthrough stealth, deception, and new forms of“weapons” that would not be recognized as such.

Karl Marx, for example, published The Communist

Manifesto in 1848. He understood subjugation of thePeople required centralized control of the means of production, most notably land. According to Marx:

“...the theory of the Communists may be summedup in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

“And the abolition of this state of things is called bythe bourgeois, abolition of individuality andfreedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeoisindividuality, bourgeois independence, and

bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

Indeed, the very first of Karl Marx’s 10 planks ofCommunism reads:

“Abolition of property in land and application of allrents of land to public purposes.”

Thus, two very different, opposing, and irreconcilableviews continue to this day.

Forms Of Land ControlIt is essential to understand and differentiate amongstdifferent forms of land control.

Ownership is one category. Who owns the publiclands? Answer: The People, who are the sovereigns,not the federal government.





Trusteeship As to the so-called federal or public lands,the federal government is merely the trustee, not theowner, acting on behalf of the People to dispose ofthese lands, i.e., to convert them to private property.

Legislative Authority Federal legislative authority is

defined and tightly limited by Article I of theConstitution.

Jurisdiction is a commonly misunderstood word. Asin the word juris prudence, juris refers to the courts.Article III of the Constitution, which created a judicial branch, does not fully enumerate the matters overwhich it has power. Accordingly, the courts had tomake this determination, and logically concluded theyhave authority! jurisdiction!where government haslegislative authority.

Conversely, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over

matters the federal government does not havelegislative authority over. This is confirmed inSupreme Court decisions.

“The Court established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, andthis is a principle incorporated into all subsequentdecisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S.Constitution. ! United States v. Bevans 16 U.S.

(3Wheat.) 366 (1818)”

Constitutional Constraints

The Constitution tightly constrained which lands!andfor which purposes!the federal government wouldcontrol.

ARTICLE I

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is one of the most

important, and most abused clauses in the Constitution.It limits the federal government’s control over ourlands to only two purposes.

1) 10 square miles for the seat of government bycession of the respective States, and

2) the purchase of State lands, with consent of therespective States, for the construction of facilities

essential to self-defense. These are known as federalenclaves.

It reads as follows. The enabling language is exclusivelegislation.

“The Congress shall have power...To exerciseexclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, oversuch District (not exceeding ten miles square) asmay, by cession of particular States, and theacceptance of Congress, become the seat of thegovernment of the United States, and to exerciselike authority over all places purchased by theconsent of the legislature of the State in which thesame shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines,arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”

ARTICLE IV

Article IV of the Constitution discusses the relationshipof the federal government to the States, the territories,and U.S. possessions.

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the centralgovernment the authority to make needful rules andregulations over the territories and U.S. possessions.The territories have been converted to States on anequal footing, and thus are not of current consideration.

The Federal Zone A Shadow Government

FEDERAL JURISDICTION IS CONSTRAINED

That’s it. That is the full extent of the federalgovernment’s authority over land. Collectively, theselands will be referred to as the Federal Zone,consisting solely of:

• The District of Columbia

• The federal enclaves

• Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, andAmerican Samoa

Those constraints on federal power are as fundamentalto the aspirations of a free People as any other. Thefederal government was not delegated unilateralauthority to take or control lands. Despite itsambitions, the federal government is not a country unto





itself created to conquer the sovereign States orsubjugate everyone to its rule.

The Federal Zone does not!and cannotConstitutionally!-include so-called national parks,monuments, wilderness areas, national grasslands,

wetlands, etc. None of these purposes are authorizedunder the Constitution.

“the United States never held any municipalsovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama, or any of the newstates were formed; except for temporary purposes,and to execute the trusts created ...” ! Pollard v.Hagan, 44 U.S. 212 (1845)

MUNICIPAL LAW

The term used for legislation that governs the internalaffairs of a sovereign state is called municipal law, ascontrasted to international law that governs theinterrelations of sovereign states. Federal laws that pertain to the Federal Zone are municipal, not generallaws. Federal laws regarding the protection of personand property are municipal laws and apply only withinthe Federal Zone. In fact, all federal laws are presumedto be municipal laws unless clearly stated otherwise.

“...within any state of this Union the preservation of

the peace and the protection of person and propertyare the functions of the state government, and arenot part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation.The laws of congress in respect to those matters donot extend into the territorial limits of the states, buthave force only in the District of Columbia, andother places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.”! Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 211, 215 (1894)

“All legislation is prima facie territorial.” ! American Banana v. United Fruit, 213 U.S. 347(1909)

“Legislation is presumptively territorial andconfined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction.”! NY Central Railroad v.Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29 (1925)

“...legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intentappears, is meant to apply only within the territorial

jurisdiction of the United States.” ! U.S. v. Spelar,338 U.S. 217 (1949)

THE DECEPTION

The central government, therefore, wears two hats.Congress passes general legislation that applies to allStates. These laws must comply with the U.S.Constitution. Congress also passes municipallegislation that applies only to the Federal Zone.Remarkably, the federal courts have adopted the position that Constitutional limits do not apply tofederal municipal law!thus, creating a Federal Zonethat is not bound by the very Constitution designed toconstrain it. Houdini slipped out of his straight jacket.

By the federal government’s interpretation of exclusivelegis lat ion to mean free of Consti tutional

constraints!

an interpretation continued into the 14thAmendment that pulled people into the Federal Zone,not just land!a parallel but unconstrained secondnation was created.

Both nations are called the United States. That is because the term United States is used to describe threedifferent things: 1) the sovereign 50 States, 2) theFederal Zone, and 3) the combination of two.

Likewise, both sets of laws are called laws of theUnited States, without making a distinction betweenthe two.

In fact, we have two radically different types oflegislation being intermingled by one Congress, onePresident, one Federal Register, one United StatesCode, one Code of Federal Regulations, one set ofcourts, and one description. It is no wonder the People,our representatives, and even government agents aredeceived into accepting federal municipal laws as thelaw of the land, when they are not.

THE FEDS CANNOT EXPAND THE FEDERAL ZONE

Federal purchases of public lands from: 1) States fornon-enumerated purposes, 2) organizations such as theCenter for Biological Diversity, and 3) individuals, areunconstitutional and therefore null and void.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution areinvolved, there can be no rule making or legislation































which would abrogate them.” ! Miranda v.Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

STATES CANNOT EXPAND THE FEDERAL ZONE

The States cannot defeat the rights of the People byconsenting to an unconstitutional expansion of federalauthority.

“Where Congress exceeds its authority relative tothe States, therefore, the departure from theconstitutional plan cannot be ratified by the‘consent’ of state officials ... The constitutionalauthority of Congress cannot be expanded by the‘consent’ of the governmental unit whose domain isthereby narrowed, whether that unit is the ExecutiveBranch or the States.” ! New York v. UnitedStates, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Challenge Federal Jurisdiction

Federal jurisdiction over our public lands can, andmust be challenged. Once challenged, the burden lieswith the federal government to prove its jurisdiction.

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed,it must be proved to exist.” ! Stuck v. MedicalExaminers (94 Ca2nd 751.211 P2s 389)

“Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumedand must be decided.” ! Maine v. Thiboutot (100 S. Ct. 250)

Eminent Domain

Next we will discuss eminent domain. This is anotherarea to be challenged. Federal, State and localgovernments are increasingly regulating and otherwisecontrolling!even dictating!the use of private

property as if they had this right under eminentdomain. They even go so far as to assert developmentof one’s own land is a government-granted privilege,not an unalienable right .

Who has eminent domain? Consider the following:

The People are the sovereigns. There is no higher authority.

The States do not hold title. To create new States,Congress passed a series of enabling acts. A conditionwas the States clear any title they might otherwiseclaim over public lands. This was to insure clear titlewhen Land Patents were issued by the federalgovernment. Thus, the States do not have title and are

not, in fact, even in the chain of title.

The Federal Government granted clear title, therebyextinguishing any right it might otherwise claim to theland. Forever.

Given these facts, only one conclusion is possible. Theeminent domain of private lands belongs to theirrespective owners, not government. Governmentconfiscates private property only by threat andcoercion, not by lawful means.

Time To UniteThere are at least five different approaches being pursued to gain control over the management of ourlands. They are divided into two categories.

CATEGORY A

Statehood is the approach being taken by Utah, and being considered by several other States. This approachseeks the return of public lands, the premise being public lands belong to the federal government, not the

People of the respective States.

Separation seeks to create new states from existingstates to insure rural Americans are represented. Thisapproach is being pursued by certain counties inColorado, California, and Oregon.

Coordination is the legally-mandated requirement ofthe federal government to conform its plans with thoseof the local communities and counties. Those pursuingthis approach seek to force government to comply withits own laws and regulations, such as the requirementsof the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Federal Legislation is yet another approach being pursued. The goal is to amend the harmful anddetrimental sections of the Endangered Species Act,Equal Access to Justice Act, Clean Air Act, ClearWater Act, and similar legislation.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=144














A feature common to all of these approaches is theneed for the consent and cooperation of that which hascreated our problems, namely the federal government.

CATEGORY B

Jurisdiction is the fifth approach. It is only one that fitsinto Category B. Unique among the approaches, it doesnot require the consent of the federal government. Itrequires only that county and state representativesunderstand, affirm, and uphold the Constitutionalrights of their constituents.

A UNIFIED STRATEGY

A unified approach is proposed that requires theadvocates of each approach to study and incorporate jurisdiction as a fundamental part of their strategy.Once this is done, I believe others will conclude, as Ihave, that jurisdiction by itself accomplishes most ofwhat is being sought.

In Summary

Step 1: Counties have the authority and the duty toimmediately begin the proper management of the public lands within their county borders, including theso-called “federal lands.” There is no need for theconsent of state legislatures or governors, the federalgovernment, or the courts. There is no need to filelawsuits, spend millions of dollars, or wait 10 years for judicial determination. There is no need for new oramended legislation. The only requirement is aConstitutional CountyTM ! with representatives thatunderstand the Constitution and uphold their oaths to protect and defend it.

Step 2: Challenge federal jurisdiction.

Learn More

Understanding and enforcing jurisdiction is one of themost powerful tools available to local communities toregain a voice in their destinies. Learn all that you canabout jurisdiction, and share the information withevery one and every organization you can think of,including your county representatives.

The Defend Rural America website

A copy of this white paper

The Constitutional CountyTM

• Constitutional quotes

Coordination

Endangered Species Act

Equal Access to Justice Act

Jurisdiction

• Apache County’s story

• Resolution No. 1

• Resolution No. 2

Land Patents

Public Lands

Statehood

NOTE: Defend Rural Amer icaTM and ConstitutionalCountyTM are trademarks of K irk F. MacKenzie.



http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Home.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/ApacheCounty.html




http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Statehood.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Statehood.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Public_Lands.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Public_Lands.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Land_Patents.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Land_Patents.html









http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/EAJA.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/EAJA.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/ESA.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/ESA.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Coordination.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Coordination.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Quotes.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Quotes.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Constitution.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Constitution.html

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf

http://www.defendruralamerica.com/files/Jurisdiction.pdf



Documents

Jurisdiction- How Ro Defend Rural America