DOES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE JURISDICTION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE?
This page is dedicated to one of the browns legal arguments. it is called the RSA 123:1 argument. according to the constitution of These United States the federal Government must ask permission from the states to have the state jurisdiction “ceded” to the fed’s.
Article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution says:
“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; “
So if the U.S. Constitution says that the feds must have their jurisdiction ceded (as by the word cession) then the question becomes did they properly do that? to answer that question you must know what the process is for New Hampshire to “cede” jurisdiction to the FEDS. to know that you have to go to the New Hampshire revised satutes and specifically RSA 123:1 the text of that is: TITLE IX ACQUISITION OF LANDS BY UNITED STATES; FEDERAL AID CHAPTER 123 JURISDICTION OVER LANDS ACQUIRED; TAX EXEMPTION Section 123:1 123:1 Ceded to United States. – Jurisdiction is ceded to the United States of America over all lands within this state now or hereafter exclusively owned by the United States, and used as sites for post offices, custom-houses, military air bases, military installations or other public buildings: provided, that an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occupied, verified by the oath of some officer of the United States having knowledge of the facts, shall be filed with the secretary of this state; and, provided, further, that this cession is upon the express condition that the state of New Hampshire shall retain concurrent jurisdiction with the United States in and over all such lands, so far that all civil and criminal process issuing under the authority of this state may be executed on the said lands and in any building now or hereafter erected thereon, in the same way and with the same effect as if this statute had not been enacted; and that exclusive jurisdiction shall revert to and revest in this state whenever the lands shall cease to be the property of the United States.Source. 1883, 1:1. PS 1:1. PL 1:1. RL 1:1. RSA 123:1. 1955, 223:1, eff. June 23, 1955.
so if the U.S. constitution requires the FEDS to have the jurisdiction ceded and the ceding process in New Hampshire involves filing papers, that have “an accurate description and plan of the lands so owned and occpied”, with the New Hampshire Secretary of States office then the next question is “was that filing ever done?”, because if it wasnt then the FEDS neither HAVE, nor ever HAD jurisdiction within the boundries of the state of New Hampshire, or rather the “New Hampshire Republic”.
We have extensively researched this process and according to the Secretary of the State of New Hampshire himself, the filing that is required from the Federal Government for cession, was never made, and here is the proof of that:
so as you can see here by the step 1,2,3 process, the Federal Government DOES NOT and has NEVER had authority within the state of New Hampshire
The next step in the process to get the Feds to follow the law is to get state government to protect you, the individual citizen, from the Feds illegal application of Federal law under “color of law” which is defined this way:
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act, but which may actually operate in violation of law.
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Cojmmonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
We have attempted to get ALL state officials to help enforce the law and protect the browns. this includes approaching the governor of New Hampshire to request (we have also sued the governor to force his actions on this issue to no avail) that he follow his mandates under article 41 of the New Hampshire constitution which requires him to faithfully execute ALL laws. here is the text of article 41:
“Art.] 41. [Governor, Supreme Executive Magistrate.] There shall be a supreme executive magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of the State of New Hampshire, and whose title shall be His Excellency. The executive power of the state is vested in the governor. The governor shall be responsible for the faithful execution of the laws. He may, by appropriate court action or proceeding brought in the name of the state, enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right, by any officer, department or agency of the state. This authority shall not be construed to authorize any action or proceedings against the legislative or judicial branches.”
We have however been informed by the governor’s staff that THEY feel the SHALL word means the governor can SELECTIVELY enforce the laws of New Hampshire. we have also contacted other state officials all with the same response. here is video of another supporter explaining the law to the board of selectmen in Ed and Elaines town of Plainfield. he tells them that if they don’t protect the browns that they will be in violation of the “contract” between the people (citizens) and government that REQUIRES government to protect them. they respond by saying they don’t feel the browns are being threatened because the feds had yet to act against them, therefore they werent REQUIRED to do ANYTHING!
Once the browns realized that the federal government was acting “under color of law” they turned to their state officials, when the state officials refused to do anything about the gross infractions of the constitution the browns were left with only one other legal option, and that option was this, also guaranteed in the New Hampshire Constitution:
ARTICLE 10 “RIGHT TO REVOLUTION”
“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
so as you can see the Browns, faced with a breakdown of protections at all levels of government, federal, state, and local, didn’t only have the RIGHT to revolt, they were REQUIRED to by their constitution!