USA v. Bachmeier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN CURTIS BACHMEIER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cr-00103-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court at Docket 113 is Defendant Steven Curtis Bachmeier’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Government responded at Docket 115, and
Defendant did not file a reply. 	Oral argument was requested but was not necessary to
the Court’s determination.
Mr. Bachmeier asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case. He raises
four separate arguments.
First, Mr. Bachmeier maintains that the Court does not have jurisdiction because
“state land, like Alaska in this case, is not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.’ unless
there has been a cession of land AND jurisdiction was accepted by the United States.”1
He cites to 40 U.S.C. § 3112, but that statute relates to federal jurisdiction over land or
an interest in land. It does not relate to federal court jurisdiction over the prosecution of
certain crimes. 	Mr. Bachmeier also cites to John Phillips v. J.M. Thralls, 26 Kan. 780
1 Docket 113 at 2.
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 118 Filed 05/03/18 Page 1 of 3

3:17-cr-00103-SLG, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re Motion to Dismiss
Page 2 of 3
(1882), but Phillips involved the authority of a justice of the peace to hold court outside
the limits of the township of which he was a justice, which is not at issue in this case. Mr.
Bachmeier also notes that a felon in possession of a firearm in Russia could not be
charged with a federal crime by the United States. But Russia is not within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States; the state of Alaska is. Mr. Bachmeier also cites to United
States v. Luton, 486 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1973). That case addressed whether a certain
district court – the Northern District of Mississippi – had jurisdiction over a particular
firearms offense. The Circuit held that the federal district court had jurisdiction over that
case so long as some part of the criminal activity occurred within that district. Here, it is
not disputed that Mr. Bachmeier’s alleged criminal activity occurred within the District of
Alaska.
Mr. Bachmeier next asserts that there is no jurisdiction under the Commerce
Clause, 	because 	the 	Government 	has 	not 	alleged 	that 	Mailing 	Threatening
Communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) is “directed at the instrumentalities,
channels, or goods involved in interstate commerce.”2 But the Court finds that the U.S.
mail is a channel involved in interstate commerce.3 	And “under the Commerce Clause,
Congress is empowered to regulate and protect instrumentalities of interstate commerce
. . . even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities.”4
2 Docket 113 at 3 (quoting United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618 (2000)).
3 Cf. Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504, 1511 (2017) (discussing service by “postal
channels” under the Hague Convention).
4 Pierce Cnty., Wash. v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 147 (2003) (internal quotations and citations
omitted); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 23 (2005) (holding “[w]here the class of activities
is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power to excise,
as trivial, individual instances of the class” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); United
States v. Hasner, 340 F.3d 1261, 1270 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that intrastate Federal Express
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 118 Filed 05/03/18 Page 2 of 3

3:17-cr-00103-SLG, USA v. Bachmeier
Order re Motion to Dismiss
Page 3 of 3
The Court also has jurisdiction under the Postal Clause of the Constitution, which
empowers Congress to establish post offices.5 Under the mail fraud statute, the use of
the mails establishes federal jurisdiction, so long as the mailing is incident to an essential
part of the scheme.6 Similarly, under 18 U.S.C. § 876(c), the use of the mails to send a
threatening communication establishes federal jurisdiction.
Finally, the Court has jurisdiction under the Necessary and Proper Clause, which
grants Congress the authority to make all laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out
other constitutional powers, including those powers enumerated by the Commerce
Clause and the Postal Clause.7 	18 U.S.C. § 876 “is obviously appropriate to protect the
functioning of the national government and hence is authorized by Article I § 8, clause 18,
authorizing enactment of ‘all laws which shall be necessary and proper’ for carrying into
execution the other powers granted by the Constitution.”8
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion at Docket 113
is DENIED.
DATED this 3rd day of May, 2017 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
delivery is within federal jurisdiction under mail fraud statute).
5 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 7.
6 Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 710–11 (1989).
7 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18.
8 United States v. Galu, 812 F.Supp. 19, 21 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
Case 3:17-cr-00103-SLG-DMS Document 118 Filed 05/03/18 Page 3 of 3