Sean and Sandy Anderson in Portland Oregon right after court today 2/6/17

THESE TWO AMERICA LOVING, GOD FEARING, CONSTITUTIONAL PATRIOTS are being prosecuted by our elected and appointed Republican and Democrat USURPER enemies of our Constitution, our Bill Of Rights, and our Ninth and TENTH Amendment supreme laws of the land.

SEAN and SANDY are on TRIAL for STANDING UP for YOUR and your children’s God endowed Individual Rights, States Rights, and State sovereignty pursuant to the rule of Ninth and TENTH Amendment law and order upon The President of The United States of America, upon Congress and upon the SCOTUS.

These supreme laws of the land EXPRESSLY DO NOT AUTHORIZE the U.S. Government to own ANY LAND within the Continental united States, other than land for Washington D.C. and “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” – ARTICLE I Section 8 clause 17 of The Constitution

Sean and Sandy Anderson are my friends and colleagues and Brother and Sister in Arms in the American Militia Freedom Forces as is required by all Americans under 10 U.S. Code § 311. They served with me at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge campaign with LaVoy Finicum, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, the American Militia Freedom Forces, and the Constitutional Patriots. They are my colleagues in the Holy cause of FREEDOM and the restoration of Ninth and TENTH Amendment law upon all of our elected, appointed and hired Municipal, County, State and U.S. Government usurper enemies of Constitutional Law and Order that WE THE PEOPLE “ordained and established” UPON THEM to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” – Preamble of The Constitution

The U.S. Government’s Constitutionally contemptuous TITLE 18 U.S. Code 2381 Capital Felony Treasonous CRIMINAL Federal Judge Anna Brown WILL NOT ALLOW them a Trial by Jury, as required under The Bill Of Rights:

ARTICLE III Section 2 clause 3:

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791:

“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”




And, the mainstream Media will NOT LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS. And, if they do they use FAKE NEWS to create a false narrative that attacks The Constitution itself.

—-> See: <—-

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT is NOT AUTHORIZED to own or manage ANY LAND within the Continental united States of America:
I’ll lay out the Rule of Constitutional Law and Order for you. And, the BLM isn’t even authorized to exist pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, which refers to ARTICLE I Section 8.


The equal footing doctrine, also known equality of the states, is the principle in United States constitutional law that all states admitted to the Union under the Constitution since 1789 enter on equal footing with the 13 states already in the Union at that time. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to admit new states in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, which states:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.[1]

Beginning with the admission of Tennessee in 1796, Congress has included in each state’s act of admission a clause providing that it enters the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever”.[1] Before that, when Vermont was admitted in 1791, the act said Vermont was to be “a new and entire member” of the United States.


At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal to include the phrase, “new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States”, was defeated. It was feared that the political power of future new western states would eventually overwhelm that of the established eastern states. Once the new Constitution went into effect, however, Congress admitted Vermont and Kentucky on equal terms and thereafter formalized the condition in its acts of admission for subsequent states, declaring that the new state enters “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” Thus the Congress, utilizing the discretion allowed by the framers, adopted a policy of equal status for all newly admitted states.[2] With the growth of states’ rights advocacy during the antebellum period, the Supreme Court asserted, in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), that the Constitution mandated admission of new states on the basis of equality”.[1]
Coyle v Smith
Main article: Coyle v. Smith

In Coyle v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559 (1911), the Supreme Court ruled that even if Congress mandates a unique limitation be put in a prospective state’s constitution, and the state residents agree, this unique mandate is not enforceable.

On December 29, 1910, the state of Oklahoma enacted a statute which removed the state capital from Guthrie to Oklahoma City. W.H. Coyle, owner of large property interests in Guthrie, sued the state of Oklahoma, arguing that the move was performed in violation of the state constitution’s acceptance of the terms of the 1906 Oklahoma Enabling Act which mandated that a temporary capital be located in Guthrie until the year 1913.
Supreme Court findings

The Court noted that the power given to Congress by Art. IV, § 3, of the Constitution is to admit new States to this Union, and relates only to such States as are equal to each other in power and dignity and competency to exert the residuum of sovereignty not delegated to the Federal Government.

The Supreme Court held that preventing the state of Oklahoma the right to locate its own seat of government deprived it of powers which all other states of the Union enjoyed, and thus violated the traditional constitutional principle that all new states be admitted “on an equal footing with the original states”. As a result, the provision of the enabling act which temporarily restricted Oklahoma’s right to determine where its seat of government would be was unconstitutional.
United States v. Holt State Bank

In United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49 (1926), the Supreme Court ruled that the equal footing doctrine applied to water rights. The Supreme Court rejected a claim by the Red Lake Indian Reservation of Minnesota that they had rights to Mud Lake and other navigable waters within the reservation by virtue of the tribe’s aboriginal status.

In general, lands underlying navigable waters within a state belong to the state in its sovereign capacity, and may be used and disposed of as it may elect, subject to the paramount power of Congress to control such waters for the purposes of navigation in interstate and foreign commerce. Where the United States, after acquiring the territory and before the creation of the state, has granted rights to land to a third party, rights which otherwise would then pass to the state in virtue of its admission to the Union, remain with the third party.[3]

But disposals by the United States, during the territorial period, of lands under navigable water should not be regarded as intended unless there was a definite declaration by contract, statute, or other similar action.[4]

At the time of Minnesota’s admission as a state, Mud Lake and other and much larger navigable waters within her limits were included in the Red Lake Indian Reservation. The Chippewas Tribe ceded to the United States their right of occupancy of the surrounding lands, leaving the Red Lake Reservation as a remainder of their original aboriginal territory. While the area was recognized as a reservation, it was never formally set apart as such.[5]
Supreme Court findings

The State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union in 1858, 11 Stat. 285, c. 31, and, under the constitutional principle of equality among the several states, the title to the bed of Mud Lake then passed to the state if the lake was navigable and if the bed had not already been disposed of by the United States. Navigability does not depend on the particular mode in which such use is or may be had – whether by steamboats, sailing vessels or flatboats – nor on an absence of occasional difficulties in navigation, but on the fact that the stream in its natural and ordinary condition affords a channel for useful commerce.
See also

Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212, 223 (1845)
Idaho v. United States, 533 U.S. 262 (2001)


“Doctrine of the Equality of States”. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
Forte, David F. “Essays on Article IV: New States Clause”. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation.
Holt, at p. 54
Holt, at p. 55
Holt, at p. 57

Furthermore, even should there be a case where any State Constitution accepted anything not in accordance with the Equal Footing Doctrine and/or The Constitution –>FOR<– The United States of America we need to refer to the Supremacy clauses 2 & 3 of ARTICLE VI:

clause 2.) “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof —->(the Ninth and TENTH Amendment “supreme laws of the land”); 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.”<—–

clause 3.) “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”

Once Congress accepts and confirms a “Territory” (ie; Reaching the required 60,000 in population) becoming a FREE, INDEPENDENT and SOVEREIGN County, called a State, today one of fifty, which according to The Preamble of The Constitution “forms a more perfect Union” of fifty free, independent and sovereign Countries called States, then it is NO longer a Territory, but a Country, a.k.a. a State.

And, pursuant to the rule of Constitutional law under ARTICLE I Section 8 clause 17 subsequent to the TENTH Amendment law, which WE THE PEOPLE, according to the Preamble of The Constitution. “ordained and established” upon The President of The United States of America, upon Congress and upon The SCOTUS, the U.S. Government is NO LONGER authorized, under the Rule of The Supreme Law of the Land (Supremacy clauses 2 & 3 of ARTICLE VI) to own or manage ANY LAND whatsoever, within the Continental united States of America, with the ONLY exceptions being the only remaining Territory being Washington D.C. (Ten Miles square) and/or “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; Period, end of story.

That is why we have an ARTICLE IV Section 4 “REPUBLICAN form of Government”.

What is “a REPUBLICAN form of Government” as is the supreme law of the land?
The definition of a “REPUBLICAN form of Government” is one in which an alliance of free, independent, and sovereign Countries, called States, creates a central government of very limited power; the members States have supreme authority (Including ALL SPENDING not authorized under ARTICLE I Section 8 – which is the primary reason why, according to the several rulings by the SCOTUS, Withholding Taxes, Income Taxes nor matching Employer Taxes apply to Americans) over all matters except those few which (listed under ARTICLE I Section 8 of The Constitution subsequent to our Ninth and TENTH Amendment laws) have been expressly delegated to the central government.
FEDERALIST #45; “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

FEDERALIST #33; “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. The propriety of a law, in a constitutional light, must always be determined by the nature of the powers upon which it is founded.”
“But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

FEDERALIST #10: “Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
REGARDING OUR Constitutional Political Prisoners who STOOD UP for the Rule of Ninth and TENTH Amendment LAW and Order at April 2014 Battle of Bunkerville and the January 2016 Malheur Wildlife Refuge Takeover, on lands that the U.S. Government IS NOT Authorized to own OR Manage:

Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803)

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality, would date for the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”
If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

Shepard’s Citations:
A group of reporters that go through and keep track of all court cases that have come before the courts, especially the Supreme Court and they clarify, before the court, all the cases. All cases which have cited Marbury v. Madison case, to the Supreme Court has not ever been overturned. See Shepard’s Citation of Marbury v. Madison.

KEEP IN MIND THAT NO FEDERAL COURT JUDGE WILL ALLOW THE CONSTITUTION or FEDERAL or SUPREME Court Case Law in Court to be presented to the Jury. All Juries, throughout the United States ARE ORDERED not to be allowed to know what the Constitutional Law is or what our Individual Rights are. THAT is what ALL Judges CALL “THE LAW”. Every single Judge in America follows that so Called Law, Code and Statute which is heinously REPUGNANT to The Constitution and Bill Of Rights… But yet every single BLUEcoat and FEDcoat in all of America, like those who EXECUTED LaVoy Finicum says; “We’re Just Doing Our Job!”, like any good Nazi.

Any questions?

SO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT put 40 of my Constitutional Patriot Brothers and sister, IN PRISON for STANDING UP for THE Rule of Ninth and TENTH Amendment Law, pursuant to The Equal Footing Doctrine for 374 DAYS from their wives and children? ? ?

WHAT kind of Government is The United States? ? ? ? ? How more HEINOUS and TYRANNICAL can you get? ? ?

The U.S. Government are our ENEMIES, and the Enemies of our Ninth and TENTH Amendment laws and Bill Of Rights! PERIOD, End of Story!

Month after month Washington D.C. is ORDERING the BLM and other alphabet soup agencies to burn down American Homes, Mines, Ranches, Farms and CATTLE ALIVE out West. We have videos of them doing all of this!

We have Body Cam and Dash Cam recordings of the BLM and other U.S. Government agents calling out to each other which swath of 3000 American Protesters at Bunkerville they are going to Machine Gun Down, but for the American Militia Freedom Forces who SAVED THEIR LIVES and made the U.S. Government surrender and BEG for a safe escort out of the area near the Bundy Ranch at the Battle of Bunkerville in April of 2014!

THAT IS WHAT the Federal Court Judges WILL NOT LET the American People find out about and why the SECRET TRIBUNAL with NO sort of MEDIA allowed!


What are WE THE PEOPLE going to DO about it?

– Capt. Karl
National Chairman and Senior Adviser
The Constitutional 10 U.S. Code § 311 American Militia Freedom Forces / Utah State Unorganized Militia
– The A-TEAM


About David Robinson

REVISED: David Robinson is an Author and Journalist living in the mid-coast area of Maine. He is a Graduate and Alumni of the Brunswick Police Academy. He served as a JUROR seated on the Cumberland County, Maine, Grand Jury for the first four-month session of 2014. Publisher Robinson served 3 months of a 4-month sentence for Conspiracy to defraud the United States, at the FCI Berlin minimum security Satellite Camp in Berlin New Hampshire, as retaliation after he and a friend sued the IRS, unsuccessfully, for Unfair Trade Practices, under Title 15 of the US Code. +++ Maine Lawsuit Against The IRS: For Unfair Trade Practices ( +++ Failure to File & Conspiracy: United States vs. Messier & Robinson - No. 2:14-cr-00083-DBH ( +++ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District Court of Maine / REPLY BRIEF OF ROBINSON ( +++ Books by David E. Robinson (
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s