Questionable Court Case Does Not Change Rights By Darrel Mulloy - 05.08.01 http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/may/08/mulloy.htm I first heard about 2:96-cv-099-J in an article by Geoff Metcalf in World Net Daily. For those not familiar with this case number, it refers to an action taken in Bighorn County, Wyoming, dealing with the power of the office of sheriff. It was declared by those who wrote about this case that the courts gave the sheriffs in Wyoming autonomy over all other law enforcement agencies, state and federal. While I applaud this case, and the right of the sheriff to enforce law as the highest law enforcement agent in his county, I have searched high and low for the text of this case, to no avail. The earliest story I can find about this case is in a story by Mary Mostert titled "Wyoming Sheriffs Put Federal Officers On Choke Chains" (with that same article credited to Vin Suprynowicz in Sierra Times on 7/24/00, but I can't find that column.) The Mary Mostert column was in the Mike Reagan Info Exchange website on January 17, 2000, but there may be references to the case earlier as well. Since there seems to be no evidence of such a case (Castenada v USA) I will assume that the story is something of a hoax, but it seems that in Bighorn County, Wyoming, Sheriff Dave Mattis is doing just what the story describes. Sheriff Mattis in a story in "The Spotlight" is quoted as having said that Internet reports calling it a "court decision" and quoting the sheriff saying he can detain federal officers in custody are wrong. Mattis said the original report originated in Nashville, Tennessee in 1997, and also that the Wyoming Sheriffs Association was not involved. Assuming that the story is a hoax, and that there is no 2:96-cv-099-J or Castenada v USA, does that make the Constitution less applicable in this instance? I don't think so. In fact, Sheriff Mattis has issued notice to the federal government that they must secure his permission before they can do business in Bighorn County, and so far, they have complied with his request. Right is still right, and the tenth amendment to the Constitution gives powers not delegated to the United States (federal government) by the Constitution, to only the states and the people. There are only four law enforcement categories defined in the Constitution for the federal government, and all others should be the premise of the states and the people. Those categories are piracy, treason, counterfeiting, and postal issues, and according to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, all other law categories are the premise of the states and the people. To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, (from Federalist # 78) if the Constitution doesn't give the fed the authority, any law they make is invalid. Last I heard, that hadn't been changed by any amendment. The way I see it is that we have two choices. We can sit back and accept that the federal government is going to usurp our rights or we can do as Sheriff Mattis has done, and put the federal government on notice that they are not welcome in our states and counties without the approval of law enforcement agents in those states. Montana has, I understand, passed legislation that requires the federal government to gain the permission of local sheriffs before attempting to conduct federal business in any part of the state not ceded to the federal government already. (Montana House Bill #415). Nevada just failed to pass similar legislation, declaring the states sovereignty and independence from the federal jurisdiction that has governed most of the state. Too bad. "We the people" are the first words of the Constitution. If we want to remain first, we must declare our rights as guaranteed to us under that great document. If we are not willing to do that, we have no chance of retaining national sovereignty either. Get ready to welcome the new world order, if you are not prepared to fight for your own states sovereignty.