Source: https://publiclandjurisdiction.com/how-blm-federally-managed-public-lands-became-unconstitutional-federal-enclaves/
Timestamp: 2020-03-31 15:34:17
Document Index: 490932187

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', 'Art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 8340', 'art 8341']

How the BLM Turned Federally Managed Public Lands Into an Unconstitutional Federal Enclave | Jurisdiction on Federally Owned Public Lands
Cessions since 1962
Laws / Reports
by PLJ Admin | Feb 21, 2020 | Uncategorized
What happens if the Secretary of Interior does not understand legislative jurisdiction on federally owned lands? Could a CFR regulation be recorded, that is unconstitutional? Absolutely, and this article will define that scenario. Here is an example of federal agency ignorance. Each year the Department of Interior (DOI) publishes the Public Land Statistics Book. Did you know that for at least 63 years (1951 to 2013), the DOI’s annual Public Lands Statistics book incorrectly claimed to have “Exclusive Jurisdiction” over all federal BLM lands? This was amended a few years ago because an informed individual who studied the federal jurisdiction reports on this web site, submit a FOIA request and received this “unintended misuse” response from the BLM. For at least 63 years the Federal Government claimed all BLM lands were a federal enclave under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government and no one knew better within the entire BLM agency. It’s as if the federal jurisdiction reports on this website had been buried and forgotten. One can see based on the FOIA response that the BLM still claims “jurisdiction” over all federal lands, even though they have received no form of legislative jurisdiction from the states over 95% of federally manged lands, this will be explained in detail, within this article.
Let’s take this discussion one step further and dive into federal legislative jurisdiction on our federally owned, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) public lands. In the remainder of this well referenced article, we will discuss how it appears the vast majority of BLM federally managed public lands have become unconstitutional federal enclaves, subject to federal enclave law, despite the fact that the Federal Government has obtained no form of legislative jurisdiction over the majority of BLM lands. See DOJ Section 1630 regarding 18 U.S.C. § 7 “any property under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States is subject to these federal enclave law”.
Now that you understand how the Jurisdiction Clause, Art 1, Sect 8, Clause 17 (aka Enclave Clause) regulates the acquisition of federal jurisdiction on federally managed public lands within the states, lets define the 4 types of jurisdiction as defined in these federal documents linked below. These documents are available at www.publiclandjurisdiction.com , which is by far, the best guide online, at helping define this topic. Be sure to share it, with your elected officials including your County Sheriff if you live in an area that has BLM and USFS lands. Most Sheriffs, State Attorneys, and elected officials have no educational background on the topic. This is largely the result of this topic not being taught in criminal justice programs in colleges and law schools. The four types of legislative jurisdiction:
In the 1956 federal GSA report on this website, titled, Part I, Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Chapter III, Page 13 declares: ” The term Exclusive legislative jurisdiction as used in this report refer to the power “to exercise exclusive legislation” granted to Congress by article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, and to the like power, which may be acquired by the United States through cession by a State, or by a reservation made by the United States through cession by a State, or by a reservation made by the United States in connection with the admission of a State into the Union. In the exercise of such power as to an area in a State the Federal Government theoretically displaces the State in which the area is contained of all its sovereign authority, executive and judicial as well as legislative.
In the 1957 federal GSA report, titled, Part II, Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States, Ch. 3 (Acquisition of Legislative Jurisdiction), Pages 47-48 declare: “NECESSITY OF STATE ASSENT TO TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Constitutional consent.–The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State. Article I, section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution, provides that legislative jurisdiction may be transferred pursuant to its terms, only with the consent of the legislature of the State in which is located the area subject to the jurisdictional transfer. As was indicated in chapter II, the consent requirement of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, as intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the States’ jurisdictional integrity against Federal encroachment.”
Proprietorial Interest Only– Proprietorial Interest Only (a.k.a. proprietary jurisdiction) the Federal Government has acquired no form of legislative jurisdiction over the federal lands in question. Those instances wherein the Federal Government has some right or title to an area in a State but has not obtained any measure of the State’s authority over the area. In applying this definition, recognition should be given to the fact that the United States, by virtue of its functions and authority under various provisions of the Constitution, has many powers and immunities not possessed by ordinary landholders.
Please refer to the federal report resources in the table below, to further understand legislative jurisdiction on federally managed public lands. Be sure to search your own state and county for cessions of jurisdiction in the 1962 Federal GSA Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States (aka Eisenhower Report).
Year / Federal Document Download PDF
1956 Part 1 Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States Download 1956 Part I Federal Jurisdiction Study
1957 Part 2 Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States Download 1957 Part II Federal Jurisdiction Study
1962 Federal GSA Inventory Report on Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States, Eisenhower Report, all 50 states Download 1962 Inventory Report Jurisdictional Status of Federal Areas within the States, Entire Report
1969 DOJ Jurisdiction Report, Wayne Aspinall Download 1969 Federal Jurisdiction Report
1973 Military Administrative Law Handbook, Ch 6 Jurisdiction, Sect III and IV Download 1973 Military Administrative Law Handbook, Ch. 6 Jurisdiction, Section III and IV
2020 Territorial Jurisdiction, Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual 664 Download 2020 Department of Justice, Criminal Resource Manual 664, Territorial Jurisdiction
So, how did 95% of the federally managed BLM public lands become unconstitutional federal enclaves by the Secretary of Interior? As explained earlier, 95% of federally managed public lands are held in a Proprietorial Interest Only, by the Federal Government. They own the land, they lack the legislative jurisdiction over the public lands to apply federal enclave law and adopt state laws according to the shared federal reports. In spite of these federal jurisdiction documents, the BLM is adopting state laws in Colorado and it appears to be under eCFR 8341.1 Regulation Governing Use.
What is the difference between United States Code (USC) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)? USC is made up of the official federal statutes passed by our elected Congress and contains 53 titles, FLPMA is located in Title 43. CFR contains all of the regulations written by executive agencies and puts statutes from the USC into administrative practice. Title 43, Subtitle B, Sub-chapter H, Part 8340 Off Road Vehicles, Sub-part 8341.1 (d) and (e) is adopting state laws on federal lands held in a Proprietorial Interest Only by the BLM, see CFR 8341.1 Regulation Governing Use.
The Property Clause allows Congress to make needful federal rules and federal regulations over federal lands and FLPMA gives unprecedented “King” like powers to the Secretary of Interior to write federal laws on federal lands. However, as mentioned early the Jurisdiction Clause of the Constitution and the jurisdiction cession requirements clearly defined in the referenced federal jurisdiction reports, prevents unilateral action by the Federal Government and Congress to confiscate a states jurisdiction. Title 7 of FLPMA even clarifies that FLMPA does not change any level of state or federal jurisdiction (it can’t).
Even though, the Constitutional process required for the Federal Government to obtain jurisdiction over federal lands within a state, is well defined, the BLM / DOI is adopting/assimilating states laws when the BLM has not acquired Exclusive or Concurrent jurisdiction over 95% of the federally managed public lands. This process of the BLM adopting state laws, when they only have a Proprietorial Interest Only over the majority of BLM lands, can be referenced in the 2014, Guide to BLM Law Enforcement for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. On page 5, it states “There are also federal regulations that adopt various State laws by reference. This is generally done in cases such as vehicle code violations where every State may have slightly different standards and it would be a burden on the public to have to comply with a different federal standard while on public lands. Adopting the State law by reference allows federal agencies to stay consistent with their State and local partners. Regardless of whether BLM LEOs are enforcing a federal regulation that is similar to a State law or adopting a State law by reference, unless there is legal conveyance of State Peace Officer authority to the BLM LEO, the LEO is enforcing a federal law, issuing federal citations and charging suspects in federal court. They are not enforcing State laws.” It was noted that the 2009, Guide to BLM Law Enforcement for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies is vastly different than the 2014 Guide, it does not claim the ability to adopt state laws and even correctly references the need for a cession of jurisdiction by the state. This 2012 BLM Document is also contrary to the 2014 Guide.
Here is a 2020 FOIA response regarding the issue and it provides a long list of Colorado State laws that the BLM has “adopted” or “assimilated” even though the Federal Government has not acquired Exclusive or Concurrent jurisdiction. These BLM actions appear to be in total disregard for the Jurisdiction Clause and the Assimilative Crimes Act since 97.2% of the federally managed public lands in Colorado are held in a Proprietorial Interest Only by the Federal Government. It is probably safe to assume this is happening in other western states on BLM managed public lands and if you have an interest you should submit the same FOIA type request in your state.
This is significant because the State of Colorado and its elected state legislature was once required to provide a cession of Exclusive or Concurrent Jurisdiction in order for the Federal Government to adopt state laws and enforce them as federal enclave laws, per the Assimilative Crimes Act and the Jurisdiction Clause. Regardless if this is a mistake or intentional, all BLM federal managed public lands in the United States are now a federal enclave and the BLM can adopt whatever state laws the King (Secretary of Interior) decides are prudent to protect public lands.
In Grand Junction, CO, which is the new home of the BLM, the Federal Building / U.S. Federal Courthouse at 400 Rood Avenue is named after former U.S. Congressman, Wayne N. Aspinall, who lived just a few miles away in Palisade, CO. Congressman Wayne Aspinall commissioned the Federal Legislative Jurisdiction Report prepared for Public Land Law Review Commission, Land and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, May 1969. Based on this 1969 federal jurisdiction report alone, one can presume that Wayne Aspinall might be turning over in his grave, based on the level of federal encroachment on our federally managed public lands today and how the Federal Government is now turning all federally managed public lands into federal enclaves. With no regard to a States legislative jurisdiction, the Federal Government is adopting state laws as federal laws without a cession of Exclusive or Concurrent jurisdiction by the States. This appears to be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States as it has bypassed the Jurisdiction Clause and the Assimilative Crimes Act.
BLM Law Enforcement MOU’s are Unconstitutional Cessions of Jurisdiction by the County Sheriff
Review of Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 2008 Jurisdiction Podcast
Colorado Proposes Illegal Retrocession and Nearly Turns all 24 Million Acres of Federal Lands in the State into a Federal Enclave
Three Ways for the Federal Government to Obtain Jurisdiction on Public Lands within a State
©2019 Jurisdiction on Public Lands. All rights reserved.