Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=227513&mpage=1&showdate=4/27/06 This article is a statement issued by Wyoming District Court explaining the dismissal of the case. Basically, they side-stepped the whole issue of who rules--county sheriff or feds. There has been a lot of mistatement, misunderstanding, & phony baloney re this case. The sheriff himself stated about 95% of what is reported on internet is incorrect. Case Notes: Case: Castaneda v. USA Filed: 10th May 1996 Closed: 29th April 1997 Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper Nature of Suit: Civil Rights [link to www.ck10.uscourts.gov] United States District Court District of Wyoming Our office has been receiving inquiries regarding the case of Castaneda v. United States, No. 96-CV-099. This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, alleged that the officials violated their civil rights. They filed an action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies. The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming in May, 1996. The federal defendants were primarily represented by attorneys with the Constitutional Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The County defendants were represented by non-federal attorneys. The case was settled following a settlement conference in 1997. The court did not rule on Plaintiffs' claims or any other legal issues in the case. After the settlement conference, Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a "Policy." In the "Policy," the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County. We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled. This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming. Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false. Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution. William F. Downes Chief Judge, District of Wyoming Your Ad Here Anonymous Coward User ID: 76573 4/27/2006 4:39 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote [link to www.newswithviews.com] February 26, 2005 Posted 1:00 AM Eastern NewsWithViews.com A new bill has been introduced in the Montanta State Legislature which require the County Sheriff be notified before any federal agents are allowed to enter the state with the intention of carrying out law enforcement actions. The bill provides not only for pre-notification, but the Sheriff must also give consent before federal agents may proceed. A similar action took place back on April 15, 1997, Big Horn County, Wyoming when Sheriff Dave Mattis issued a new policy regarding federal law enforcement personnel: Federal law enforcement personnel need to notify Big Horn County Sheriff's Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming. Sheriff's Office requests the following information before the Sheriff determines whether the Sheriff's Office will be involved: An identification of the individuals or residences to be searched or arrested if known. An identification of the agencies and personnel to be involved in the overall operation contemplated by the federal law enforcement agency. An identification of the chain of command for the operation or planned activity. An identification of the translator if those to be arrested or subject to search are not expected to be fluent in English. Determine the time of day of proposed arrest or search. The Sheriff's Office will inquire of federal law enforcement personnel in charge to confirm that the federal law enforcement agency in good faith has probable cause for any potential searches and arrests prior to any such search or arrest of which the Sheriffs Office gains knowledge. The Sheriff's Office will discourage federal law enforcement arrests or searches after 10:00 P.M. unless exigent circumstances exist. If assistance is provided, the Big Horn County Sheriff's Office will: Have direct radio communication capability with the Sheriff's Dispatch during all searches and arrests. Report any observed violation of civil rights to the Sheriff's Dispatch contemporaneously. Keep dispatcher logs. Prepare after action reports within 48 hours. Conduct thorough investigation of any alleged civil rights violations. This new policy by Sheriff Mattis was a result of a U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J) and announced that all federal officials were forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval stating: "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." This court decision stemmed from a lawsuit against Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the IRS by Sheriff Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association. This lawsuit filed in federal district court in Wyoming was to enforce the protections provided by the U.S. and Wyoming constitutions. The District Court found in favor of the sheriffs and stated in their ruling 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 language here reaffirms that "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 court was referring to the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Following this ruling Wyoming sheriffs then began demanding access to all ATF files to ascertain whether or not this federal agency wasn't violating provisions of Wyoming law which prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. Additionally, these sheriffs notified federal agencies that they would 'immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in state courts.' The introduction for this new bill in the Montana State Legislature, HB 284 reads as follows: A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REGULATING ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MUST OBTAIN THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S PERMISSION TO ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZE; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES VIOLATING THIS ACT; REJECTING FEDERAL LAWS PURPORTING TO GIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THE AUTHORITY OF A COUNTY SHERIFF IN THIS STATE; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE." The full text may be found here. Montana's state legislature has a short term. Supporters of this bill encourage everyone in Montana who agrees with this bill to contact their state legislator and encourage them to vote yes. © 2005 NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 4:40 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum" [ Last | Latest Posts | Latest Articles | Self Search | Add Bookmark | Post | Abuse | Help! ] Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS Government Announcement Keywords: SEARCHES FBI ATF SHERIFFS CONSTITUTION GOVERNMENT GUNS Source: Message Board Published: 1-14- 2000 Author: unknown - email link at url Posted on 01/13/2000 22:36:26 PST by Ruf WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS 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 constitutional safeguards. I hope that 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 of 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 political 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. Case Notes: Case: Castaneda v. USA Filed: 10th May 1996 Closed: 29th April 1997 Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper Nature of Suit: Civil Rights [link to www.freerepublic.com] Gee, BOGUS info from the Freeper site? Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 5:18 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote What? No one has anything to say now? Is the OP a bushbot liar trying to muddy the waters to confuse people? Seems like they're pretty desperate and trying to twist and spin facts. Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 5:19 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote I also noticed that, as is usual with disinfo bushbot debunkers, they provided no link. Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 5:24 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote The FACT IS that the Feds HAVE NO LEGAL JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON,DC. THAT INCLUDES,BUT,IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FBI,CIA,BATF,IRS, AND HOMELAND SECURITY. During Katrina FEMA did not go in until they were asked because THEY HAVE NO LEGAL JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON,DC. That is WHY the FEDS left the mess to the STATES. Anonymous Coward User ID: 86427 4/27/2006 5:38 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! THIS IS VERY REAL AND WYOMING ISN'T THE ONLY ONE!!! THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED ON IT AS WELL. LINKS WITHIN ARTICLE BELOW: THROW THE FEDS OUT OF YOUR STATE NOW! Date: Monday, 4 July 2005, 10:38 p.m. THE COURTS HAVE SPOKEN! "Any legislation including the Patriot Acts which attempts to compel State Officers to execute Federal Law is unconstitutional. Further, any federal investigational liberties can be forbidden by the States’ highest law enforcement officer. Finally, any attempts by a federal agency to coerce compliance to such liberties can be grounds for arrest of any of their agents who do not comply with the directions of that officer." THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION (COURT CASES) WAS REQUESTED BY A STATE CONGRESSMAN FROM A NORTHERN STATE. IT IS THE SAME BASIC INFORMATION SENT TO THE GROUP FIGHTING THE FEDS OVER THE WATER IN THE KLAMATH RESERVOIR SEVERAL YEARS AGO. IT WAS USED TO TELL THE FEDS TO LEAVE. THEY APPARENTLY WEREN'T HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT THEY LEFT NONETHELESS. THIS WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE PATRIOT ACTS, MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND ALL OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS/LAWS/ENACTMENTS. EVEN CODEX! STAND UP AND TELL THE FEDS TO GET OUT! THINK ABOUT IT! IS IT TIME? MAYBE YOU NEED TO SEND THIS TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNOR...? [A quote from the Supreme Court Case below: "‘[T]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’"] Case Numbers, links and important 'snippets' are all below. Thanks to Adam Selene for his research and for recreating this for us in this most important time: ********************************************************** ****** Attached as appendix “A” is a copy of one of the many newspaper reports citing the case law from the Federal District Court for Wyoming stating that the States top law enforcement officers (Sheriffs) there hold the authority to disallow Federal agents to operate in their counties. The Sovereign right and the top law enforcement officers of any of the other 49 Sovereign States, hold the same authority. This has never been challenged in any higher court, because no grounds will ever be found whereby a challenge by the Federal government can be made. One issue should be taken into account when using this case as precedent. In this case the State of Wyoming had specific wording in their State Constitution about who was the supreme law enforcement officer of the districts known as “Counties”, that of course being the “Sheriff”. In some states their State Constitution may appoint a different person, and it is necessary to identify who it is. Such a shift of authority to that person does not alleviate the Federal government from the requirement to obey them, should they use their authority. It also does nothing to change or negate any State’s standing as Sovereign in any manner. (Note: I would have quoted specific excerpts from the ruling I consider appropriate, but the Wyoming state law library database of Wyoming cases was offline for the Independence day weekend. The link is: [link to wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us] ) Also attached as appendix “B” are excerpts from Printz ruling of Printz/Mack vs. US (BRADY BILL) Supreme Court of the United States, Case numbers 95-1503 and 95-1478, June 27, 1997. This case was filed by two Sheriffs, one from Wyoming and one from Montana, when Federal authorities tried to require Sovereign State employees (including County Sheriffs) to uphold federal legislation, under the Brady Bill. Through this challenge the Supremes ruled it unlawful and reminded the Federal government that previous rulings by the high court had previously forbidden this practice. The attached excerpts are most appropriate to this matter, because a concentrated program of awarding County Sheriffs either active or honorary U.S. Marshall positions is currently underway, in an attempt to make them subject to federal direction. This is clearly forbidden in the cited ruling excerpts. What this all boils down to is this: Any legislation including the Patriot Acts which attempts to compel State Officers to execute Federal Law is unconstitutional. Further, any federal investigational liberties can be forbidden by the States’ highest law enforcement officer. Finally, any attempts by a federal agency to coerce compliance to such liberties can be grounds for arrest of any of their agents who do not comply with the directions of that officer. Respectfully submitted, Adam Selene Freelance Legislative Researcher ********************************************************** * Appendix “A” Sheriff boots Feds from his county By Phil Hamby [See note below.] Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming said this week that as a result of Case # 96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he now has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions. After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction in my county unless I grant it to them." Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled the state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county. Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides. "Put another way," Mattis said, "if the 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." Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the word "sovereign," which is defined by Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State." Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen. As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court. Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county. Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county. He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws. As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers. Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be. Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance. Copyright 1997 The Knoxville Journal ******************************************** Appendix “B” Excerpts with emphasis added from: U.S. Supreme Court Syllabus PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 95- 1478. Argued December 3, 1996 Decided June 27, 1997 “The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service, and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional…” “We have held, however, that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). 5 “ “Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty," The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869)… Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers,but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion that ‘[T]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ “ “The Framers' experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. See The Federalist No. 15.” “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other...The Constitution thus contemplates that a State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576 -577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (‘the State has no legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]’). “ “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty…Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)…” “The dissent perceives a simple answer in that portion of Article VI which requires that ‘all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution,’ arguing that by virtue of the Supremacy Clause this makes ‘not only the Constitution, but every law enacted by Congress as well,’ binding on state officers, including laws requiring state officer enforcement…The Supremacy Clause, however, makes ‘Law of the Land’ only ‘Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance [of the Constitution’; so the Supremacy Clause merely brings us back to the question discussed earlier, whether laws conscripting state officers violate state sovereignty and are thus not in accord with the Constitution…” "The Federal Government," we held, "may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 188 (1992)… We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered. ” Link to full Syllabus: [link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com] Anonymous Coward User ID: 76573 4/27/2006 5:38 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote "Is the OP a bushbot liar trying to muddy the waters to confuse people? Seems like they're pretty desperate and trying to twist and spin facts." Seems like. Anonymous Coward User ID: 86427 4/27/2006 5:40 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Just so we get this straight: The Wyoming thread is not...I repeat, NOT Bogus!!!! Read the links in my post above for what the Supreme court had to say. And here is the findlaw link to more: [link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com] Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 5:43 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote The FACT IS that the Feds HAVE NO LEGAL JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON,DC. THAT INCLUDES,BUT,IS NOT LIMITED TO THE FBI,CIA,BATF,IRS, AND HOMELAND SECURITY. During Katrina FEMA did not go in until they were asked because THEY HAVE NO LEGAL JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF WASHINGTON,DC. That is WHY the FEDS left the mess to the STATES. Bush and Co KNOW they and their agents have no jurisdiction beyond DC. They counted on using that FACT to cover their asses should any trouble come from their sitting around and letting people drown, but, hoping that citizens would never find out they have no jurisdiction beyond DC. You see, the REAL power IS with the PEOPLE, not the bureaucrats that populate 'government'. They are terrified lest that FACT ever be known because it strips them naked of their hold over you. Anonymous Coward User ID: 76573 4/27/2006 5:47 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Too bad for OP, the shill neener Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 5:58 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote 86427 Thank you for the info to clear this matter up. What this means is that WE, THE PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE FEDS IN ANY MATTER, WHATSOEVER. You can drive FEMA right out of your neighborhoods. You can drive the IRS right out of your neighborhoods. You can drive any and ALL Federal agents right out of your neighborhoods. The Federal government is a SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. Thus, the Presdident, Vice President, and all their cohorts ARE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. They are nothing more than figureheads. Bush and his GOP co-conspirators commited treason when they bought their way into that figurehead in 2000. They commited treason by rigging votes in 2004 and by racketeering during elections. They continue to commit crimes against you. The Bush administration lies, deceives, and has robbed you, the people, blind. They have and continue to manipulate you with lies, fear and terror. It's time you exercised your Sovereign Rights and bring these thugs to Justice. The world and GOD will not forgive you if you don't. Anonymous Coward User ID: 80202 4/27/2006 6:00 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote duhhh what thread here ISN'T bogus? Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 6:02 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote >Too bad for OP, the shill They appear either so stupid or so desperate to maintain their weak hold onto power that they will try anything. They will soon learn that there are more educated, aware, truly patriotic people on this forum than they can possibly intimidate. Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411 4/27/2006 6:04 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote 80202 naughty s2 User ID: 74188 4/27/2006 6:48 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Hey 74411.. you apparently have shit for brains... there is a link to read the case yourself, but I would suspect you lack the mental capacity to think for yourself, or apparently even to find the link on the page. Bottom line is that the facts of the case are that there was never a ruling handed down as a court decision because the parties reached a compromise and settled out of court. I never said that the facts of the case were incorrect, or that the jurisdictional issues of the case were unsound....on the contrary, the Wyoming sheriff was exactly correct and thats why the other side cut and ran. if you knew anything, you would know that the whole system is a sham...the last thing they want is a court decision that would set a precident for other districts to rely on...that's why the deal was cut at the very end. However, to represent that there was a court ruling/decision signed by a judge is completely wrong. This keeps the game going. you are truly a shit for brains. by the way, rather than post another idiotic post, why not go right to the source and ask him yourself. bhcsheriff@tctwest.net scumbag Anonymous Coward User ID: 86427 4/27/2006 6:57 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Dear Scumbag, You didn't read either. The Supreme Court already ruled. Anonymous Coward User ID: 86427 4/27/2006 7:00 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote I should have said: The Supreme Court Already ruled on this subject! Besides, it is ALREADY the law of the land. There was nothing to negotiate!!! s2 User ID: 74188 4/27/2006 7:21 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote well, apparently you didn't read the SC case either: Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. What do you read here that is the same as the Wyoming claims made earlier?? It says that the "Federal Bureaucracy's armed militia" cannot conscript the states officers...to enforce or administer federal regulatory programs...doesn't have anything to do with the original thread. I know info flies fast on GLP, but before posting stupiud threads, try reading them at least...and if you don't understand...shut the fuck up. s2 User ID: 74188 4/27/2006 8:09 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote one more, predigested for those that can't read or do research on their own.. Questionable Court Case Does Not Change Rights By Darrel Mulloy - 05.08.01 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. Your Comments....E-mail to a Friend...Back to Editorials..Top of Page Permission to reprint/republish granted, as long as you include the name of our site, the author, and our URL. www.SierraTimes.com All Sierra Times news reports, and all editorials are © 2001 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted) SierraTimes.com™ A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc. Anonymous Coward User ID: 1115 4/28/2006 7:26 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote The OP and the bushnazis who tried to spin their treasonous lies are a good example of how they operate on this forum and others. They are terrified that the truth is coming out because it means the end of them and their globalist plans. Anonymous Coward User ID: 1115 4/28/2006 7:45 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Oh yes, true to form and their usual mode of operation, when the bushies get caught in their lies, they always call the truth tellers names and attempt to belittle their intelligence and their sources. Anonymous Coward User ID: 1115 4/28/2006 9:06 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Bump to expose the neocon shills for what they are and how they operate. Anonymous Coward User ID: 1115 4/28/2006 9:45 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote BTTT Anonymous Coward User ID: 1115 4/28/2006 10:43 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Bumpity bump Anonymous Coward User ID: 3524 4/28/2006 4:08 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote militia Anonymous Coward User ID: 87875 5/1/2006 7:48 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Bump the info. Anonymous Coward User ID: 87875 5/1/2006 8:49 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote BTTT Anonymous Coward User ID: 2312 5/1/2006 9:50 AM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote is that the same Castaneda that wrote all those LSD tripping books about the indians? lowly legislator User ID: 91339 5/9/2006 2:08 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote This has got to stop. There is NO COURT RULING that provides County Sheriif's the authority to stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws or regulations. I wish it were different, but it is not. The Printz case out of Montana dealt with the background checks on firearms purchases. Sheriff Printz claimed his Ravalli County Sheriff's office could not AFFORD to do the federally mandated background checks. THAT IS the case he took to court, claiming one thing and one thing only: The federal government should not be allowed to require any Sheriff to enforce a federal law UNLESS the federal government paid the local Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court agreed. As such, it is settled law that the federal government may itself enforce its regulations or laws in any state, but it may not require the states to enforce that law UNLESS the federal government gives the state the money to do so. The state may agree not to take the money, but as an example, the DUI laws are attached to highway repair monies given the states. Virtually every state now has a 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, and a ban on open containers. States did this not because they wanted to, but because of the "carrot and stick" relationship with the federal government. The EPA, as another example, provides funds to willing states if those stakes take over "primacy" in enforcing EPA regulations. The state must use those federal funds to enforce federal regulations and they benefit marginally from some of the money which may be used for other things. Many states have taken up this "carrot and stick" offer. The federal government has a choke chain on the states. The Sheriff's do not, nor do most the legislatures of the states. That simply is reality. The Supreme Court has not and I fear will not ever disturb this relationship. Too much of the system is reliant on the carrot and stick principle. So, when you hear the frankly untrue story about Sherrif Dave in Wyoming "kicking out the Feds", it is patently untrue. Infact, there is not even a court ruling on that matter. Worse yet, the judge in the case had to write a letter for the public explaining that the rumors were untrue, that the case never went to trial, was dismissed under a settlement agreement, and the Judge posted a notice that warns anyone who believes they can stop a federal agent from enforcing a law or regulation will be jailed- basically. I wish it were different, but it is not. I wish the local Sheriff could be the first line of defense for a state's particular Constitutional protections, many of which which are more precise and create more protections against overbearing government than the federal constitution does, but this just isn't the case under present law. Frankly, there is roon in the courts for cases which can begin to set a line of legal authority in place that chips away at federal suprememcy issues, and there are lawyers and organizations doing just that- carefully and rather quietly. Karen Bud-Fallen is one Wyoming Attorney doing just that with respect to land use issues and private property rights. Montana passedx the first law in the nation outlawing its own state from selling any state owned lands to the feds except for Federal Constitutionally expressed purposes. County Commissioner could enact a host of ordinances to throw sand in the gears of the feds, and yes local Sheriff's could work along with local officials to do the same. Let me go another step further and offer some insight on how screwed up the state/federal relationship actually is. In the 2005 session of the Montana legislature, I carried a bill in the Montana House on the Patriot Act. It was a bipartisan effort with Montana Sen. Jim Elliot. We could not outright ban state law enforcement from participating in activities or expending money to help federal agents enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that were in conflict with our state Constitution, so we passed a resolution (not law) telling Montana law enforcement that the legislature did not want them expending money to help federal law enforcement enforce certain provisions of the patriot act. Why couldn't we ban that practice outright? Becuase the federal government gives local law enforcement all kinds of money for Meth problems, drunk driving, new equipment, and a whole host of things. The conditions attached to many of those "carrots" include a provision that the local law enforcement accepting that money will cooperate with federal agents. If we were to write a law banning cooperation, that law would be audited by the federal agencies, and the state doing so would lose money it actually relies on to operate some basic functions of law enforcement. That is how screwed up the system is. I know of only one way to stop that- look at your W-2 form. The amount going to the feds should be the amount going to the states. The amount going to the states should be the amount going to the feds. The tax system is set up backwards in my view. If that were to change, the states would have all the autonomy they need. As it is, states will continue to be assimilated under a Federal "mother hen" and have less meaning and power as time goes on. It is just that simple. I would suggest, that unless a new Supreme Court views the 10th Amendment more in keeping with the intent of the original framers, in 50 years, we won't need states except for administration of federal programs, laws, and regulations. The other option is an amendment to the US Constitution. I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but as a state legislator, I have had to face the reality of working within and indeed trying to change the system we have for the better. -Rep. Rick Maedje(R)- Fortine, Montana shibumi2 User ID: 74188 6/3/2006 2:16 PM Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately Quote Cool..Looks like a Montana legislator posted this response on my thread on the bogus Wyoming thread. GLP apparently is garnering some serious reach, at least in Montana.