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.
(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 -------
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
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),
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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA August 23, 1994
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