Infowars isalways good for atleast one attention grabber...: http://www.infowars.com/articles/bb/satellites_to be used_on_americans.htm Seems the.gov is offering to share satellite intelligence collected on/in the us with local state and federal law enforcement. Your tax dollars at work...
WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE-CHAINS http://www.surfingtheapocalypse.net/cgi-bin/ forum.cgi?noframes;read=135020 County sheriffs in Wyoming are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Speaking at a press conference following the recent US District Court decision (case No 2:96-cv-099-J) Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval. "If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." The Wyoming sheriffs are demanding access to all BATF files to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibit the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in state courts. Sheriff Mattis stated: "I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitu- tional safeguards. I hopethat more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees f the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." This case is evidence that the Tenth Amendment is not yet dead in the United States. It may also be interpreted to mean that olitical subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government and specifically prohibited to the States. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387ec3ea6413.htm (Comment: Constitutionally the sheriff is the highest and only elected law-enforcement officer in the state. Also, agencies that are part of the executive branch do not have jurisdiction outside DC. To its everlasting disgrace the Legislature of Massechusits has abolished the Sheriffs in the state that gave us Lexington, Boston and Concord! This was totally unconstitutional and never should have happened! Without the Sheriff you have no elected law enforcement office! The State Troopers are an arm of the governor's office and have no constitutional standing.) "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff is the highest law enforcement official and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." http://uscivilflags.org < http://uscivilflags.org/> Now why can't we stop them from snooping from above? Should make for a good test case in the high courts! Your Bud,
In THIS case it sounds like it would be a good thing BUT if the standing is not clarified it would ABSOLUTELY be a double edged sword. I have a friend (they lurk here at times and may choose to expand on this but I wont name them publicly) who lives in a rural area where they have a BAD sherif. Their place was burglarised several times and they knew who had done it. They reported it and followed up but the sherif wouldnt do anything. They endedd up catching the guy breaking in (they werent there at the time) on video and took the proof to the sherif. The thief happened to be good friends with one of the deputies and thats when several deputies came out in the middle of the night and beat the family member that was there badly, put a gun to his head and threatened his life. There were several more times they were harrased, beaten and or falsely charged/framed for stuff. One part of the job of the Feds is to handle cases where civil rights are violated, like above, and dirty local departments is one of the groups they go after. So the down side if the above position is carried over and not well clarified to list exceptions to this would be that the dirty sherif could then just runn Feds there to come after him out of the county. Like I say, in THIS case it sounds like they have a good sherif and he will use this decision to protect the folks there, but what happens even there when that sherif leaves (retires or dies) and they geet one who wants to make their area his private fiefdom? If theres not a check and balance its not hard for the top dog to prevent change with rigged elections or intimidation. Just something to consider.