The original colonies became separate states in a confedration afterthe Recolutionary War. They each inherited all the sovereign lands that had formerly been owned by the king. (Sovereign lands include wastelands not settled as well as bed and banks of navigable streams up to high or low water mark depending on tidal influence.) The "wastelands" could be patented to individuals by the state.
The "western wastelands" east of the Mississippi were in disputed ownership. The money from their patent to individuals would be used to settle the state's war debt. The solution was to deed much of these lands to the new corporate federal entity created by the new Constitution. These were ruled by Congress as if they were colonies under plans that allowed for the creation of new states and admittance at a certain population level. Congress sold the unused wastelands to individuals for the money. It kept no lands in federal ownership.
The area west of the Mississippi was not deeded to the corporate Congress. For the most part, it was aquired by treaty from European Countries or Mexico. The rule there under international law was that the old country's laws would continue until supplanted by new. They were treated like a territory in the Courts.
The wastelands, however, did not belong to the federal government. They belonged to the nation as public domain. The definition of "public land" is actially land that has been surveyed and is ready for disposal into individual hands.
The West was governed under derivatives of Roman property law. This recognized the equitable principals of "first in time, first in right," occupancy and continuous beneficial use. Homesteaders established equitable rights to water and land, perfect among men on the State level, but not perfected with a title against any claims of "the Sovereign."
What this means, is that the federal government had to issue a patent on land, which served as its quit claim and tribunal judgement that Indian occupancy was extinguished and there was no international treaty obligation upon the land. (There has been a ruling that the federal government cannot fail to issue a patent if there are no outstanding national obligations and the claim has been perfected.)
Old grazing allotments are property under equity that the federal government has refused to issue a patent on. (The grazer generally also owns the water use right which is a property dependent upon state law.)
The grazer is taxed for his exlusive right to use by the state with a possessory tax. The IRS also taxes the market value of the grazing allotment as part of the total ranch operation under estate taxes.
Under the "Equal footing" doctrine, all states were to be admitted on an equal footing with the original 13. This has not been the case. The federal government has "withdrawn" large areas of the public domain into federal ownership by declaring them off limits to individual acquisition. They have done this by refusing to issue a patent. (The public domain lands were a trust while the lands were in territorial status for the benefit of the future citizens of the new states that would contain them. Instead, the trustee has kept the benefit of the trust for itself. East of the Mississippi, federal lands were either purchased or donated and deeded to the federal government.)
The "Federal lands" inside the Western states are held by the corporate federal United States as belonging to all the states. The laws governing them are made by all the states in Congress. The Courts for those rules are administrative courts. Under Kleppe v. New Mexico, SCOTUS denied the supremacy of local police powers as applying to these "federal lands." Although the Constitution does provide for exclusive federal legislation in forts, arsenals, etc., absent a deed of cession of jusrisdiction from the state, legislative exclusivity was never intended to apply to vast areas inside a state. (The West was not part of the United States when the Constitution was written.)
Anyway, that is some of the basis for Cliff's claim. He is basing his claims on possessory, equitable rights good against all men to continue grazing the land as was done before the trustee "withdrew" the lands. He is questioning the feds right to preempt state jurisdiction and oust his Constitutional rights. (Did you know that in a Administrative law court you can't bring in your own evidence, cross examine witnesses or get a jury trial?)
It is obvious that the Western states are not on an equal footing with the eastern states.
Then, if that be true and we have no equal footing with the others, don't we have more reason to abandon the Union than the South ever did?
I think I have a clue what you were referring to as the "Corporate Congress," and the "Corporate US Gov." but I want to be sure, could you refresh me on this concept?