Article Image

WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE-CHAINS

Written by Subject: Law Enforcers or Peace Officers
What we need more of---

Subject: ... Wyoming sheriffs put federal officers on choke-chains ...

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:00:19 -0500

Good News for Wyoming ... how about YOUR STATE's Counties??

__________________________________________________________

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 (US District Court case No 2:96-cv-099-J was

settled out of court.) Speaking at a press conference following the

settlement, 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. 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."

"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 count y is the

highest law enforcement official within a county and has law

enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."

Note: This may apply to Wyoming and almost all other states

BUT NOT TEXAS. The Texas sheriffs have been neutered

by the sheeple's state legislature. See footnote...... Bob

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 federa l 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.

> 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 it's ever

lasting disgrace the Legislature of Mass. has abolish the Sheriffs in

the state that gave us Lexington, Boston and Concord! This was totally

un-constitutional 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."

------- End of Original Message -------

Footnote 1:

In Texas the Sheriff is NOT the highest law enforcement authority in a county.

In 1992 I was the Libertarian Party candidate for Bexar County (San Antonio) Sheriff. Until just

recently I held the incorrect concept and patriot myth that the sheriff was the highest law

enforcement authority in a county.

The Texas Constitution, Article V, Sec. 23, says that the Legislature has the authority to prescribe

the duties (and thus the authority) of the Sheriff. The Legislature has done so

primarily in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter Two, and secondarily in the Texas Local

Government Code, Chapter 85.

According to Article 2.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:

"Each sheriff shall be a conservator of the peace in his county, and shall arrest all offenders against

the laws of the State, in his view or hearing, and take them before the proper court for

examination or trial. He shall quell and suppress all assaults and batteries, affrays, insurrections

and unlawful assemblies. He shall apprehend and commit to jail all offenders, until an

examination or trial can be had."

Note that the Sheriff is merely "a" conservator of the peace in his county, not the highest law

enforcement authority in a county.

Worse than that, the Texas Government Code, Subtitle B, Chapter 411, section 411.009 says:

"(a) The sheriff and constables of each county and chief of police of each municipality are associate

members of the department and are entitled to the rights and privileges granted

to them by the department.

(b) The director may require a sheriff or other police officer in a county or municipality, within the

limits of the officer's jurisdiction, to aid or assist in the performance of a duty imposed by this

chapter. The officer shall comply with the order to the extent requested."

The "department" referred to is the Texas Department of Public Safety (state police) and the

"director" referred to is the UNELECTED Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety or his

UNELECTED subordinates.

Therefore, in Texas, unelected bureaucrats of the state police have authority over the county sheriff

who is elected by the people. This lovely situation has been brought to you by your

elected Representatives and Senators of the Texas Legislature.

In 1996 I was the Libertarian Party candidate for Texas State Representative, District 45, Comal and

Guadalupe Counties (New Braunfels and Seguin). With a total of $50 in campaign

contributions I received 11.3% of the vote. Texans get what they vote for.

for Liberty (for all),

Bill Utterback

BUtterb@connecti.com

Footnote 2: Sheriff Richard Mack saw that the Brady Bill, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (s)(2),

unconstitutional and sued to set it aside. The court found for Sheriff mack.

The justice department followed up with a field directive memo that this

court decision ONLY APPLIES IN SHERIFF MACK'S GRAHAM COUNTY

and NOT the rest of the US. The sheeple in the other states said nothing.

Sheriff Richard Mack - Google Search

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SHERIFF RICHARD MACK

Plaintiff No. CV 94-113 TUC JMR

vs ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA August 23, 1994

Defendant

DISCUSSION

By order dated June 28, 1994, this Court ruled that, in enacting 18 U.S.C.

Section 922 (s)(2), Congress exceeded its authority under Article 1, section 8 of

the United States Constitution, thereby impermissibly encroaching upon the

powers retained by the states persuant to the Tenth Amendment. The Court also

found the provision, in conjunction with the criminal sanctions its violation would

engender, to be unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment of the

United States Constitution. Accordingly, the Court entered a judgement delaring

18 U.S.C. section 922 (s)(2) to be unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the

United States of America and its agents from further enforcement...........

August 23, 1994 John M. Roll, United States District Judge

Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

GoldMoney