1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

remember to smile when you look up

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tango3, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

  2. sheen_estevez

    sheen_estevez Monkey+++

    Let them look as long as they can't see through the big tarp that covers my backyard

  3. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Got a pool painted on top?
  4. sheen_estevez

    sheen_estevez Monkey+++

  5. Ommega

    Ommega Monkey+++



    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,
  6. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    I'm liking that news story.... Very Nice!
  7. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    only one word( how does that go?) HOOO-WAH! SHERIFF MATTIS
  8. Blackjack

    Blackjack Monkey+++

    Ommega, you need to post that up in the news section.
  9. monkeyman

    monkeyman Monkey+++ Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    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.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary