I have the answer. Seriously.

I remember when I was a Sheriff about a case that went high up in federal court-about a Sheriff in Wyoming who basically told the feds to fuck off. Now, I don't remember much except for the outcome-the court said that the Sheriff had/has supreme authority for his county-over any local, state or federal authority, including atf, dea, troopers, marshals, etc. and that, if he so chose, he could detain, arrest or even fire upon any federal authority as he saw fit. And it is legal. And the gubermunt can't do shit about it.
In other words, the Sheriff is king. Period.
Now, I don't think this ever got overturned. At least to my knowledge.
My point is this-

1. The Sheriff is an elected official
2. It really doesn't take a whole lot to "qualify" as a Sheriff.
3. Vote in a Sheriff who is a member of Oath Keepers. If you don't know who we are, look it up.
4. Once elected, make a big deal of it. Get it and his policies as much media exposure as possible.
5. Others will follow (please see *footnote below).
6. Arrest senators and congressmen (and the impostor in the white house if he comes here) for treason or whatever. Cops are great at making shit up sometimes. But I figure most every politician is crooked, so it shouldn't be too difficult.
7. All 535 are elected. Now we can vote in GOOD folks.

According to the law, an incarcerated individual is not eligible for government stuff-in other words, they would lose their pension, their health insurance, etc. etc. May be off a little on this one. I'm no lawyer, thank God.

Devils advocates (except stu :) )welcome to tear this apart. It can't be.

Matt Dillon can make a comeback.[Beer]


*fn: I graduated college with a BA in psychology. Oops. Anyways, there is a thing called "the dog pack mentality". In other words, while one dog may not attack or even defend (most often will flee), the pack will always fight, and more will join. If others in our Great Country become aware of this, they will follow suit.

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 love this part-Tristan)
"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
"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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan

WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS

---

Please don't propogate horseshit.

http://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/pdfforms/96cv99.pdf

Not horseshit. Check the federal reporters (legal transcripts of the case).
Said "letter" was simply drafted by a judge after the case and is totally erroneous. Just trying to cover his own ass. He was not on the case, nor a party to it (that I know of). Also, if you read my posts and the "letter", no one is ever complaining about LEGAL activities, which is the wording judge Downes used.
The court did rule, in favor of the Sheriff.
Yes, the case was later dropped. But the motion is now what is called "a fact of law" or "a finding of law". Which, in legal terms, means it is a benchmark for subsequent cases.
Just simply a word game by judge Downes. That's "how they roll".
And yes, I did (while at the SD) consult several attorneys in/on the matter that were brought in by the Sheriff-not us. Please try to read/see beyond the words. I lived and breathed this case, in a way. It was very important for the Sheriffs' office, thus very important to me as a Deputy.
Also, you could try reading the Constitution and see what it says. I have.
So, please you quit propagating horseshit.
Thank you and have a nice day :).
[Beer]
p.s.-thanks for all the reviews. I find them helpful and informative-sometimes. But it would also be nice to see reviews on stuff us normal people can afford. Or should I say that our wives will let us afford, lol.-T.
p.p.s.-if you ever want some real martial arts videos by a real fighter who's "been there, done that", let me know. I like helping people. :).

Regardless, that Sheriff had the right idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tristan

Not horseshit.

---

Yes, it is. Ok where do I start. Your legal theory is pretty thin. Firstly, the "federal reporters" are NOT transcripts of court cases, rather they are a series of case law reports that merely summarize the case and decision. they contain no transcripts of any case.

Quote:

---

The court did rule, in favor of the Sheriff.
Yes, the case was later dropped.

---

No, there was a settlement. The court merely acknowledged the settlement and subsequent withdrawal/dismissal of the case. You can't have a withdrawal AND a ruling on the merits. If the case has been that strong for the County, then a simple 12(b)(6) motion for summary judgement would have put a swift end to the Feds defense. I think that if you've "lived and breathed" this case, you'd be more familiar with dispositive motions.

Quote:

---

Also, you could try reading the Constitution and see what it says. I have.
So, please you quit propagating horseshit.

---

Good, then we should start with the supremacy clause.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The closest thing to an argument that Sheriff Dave Mattis had in this would have been based on the Printz case out of Montana which 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.

There is NO COURT RULING that provides County Sheriif's the authority to stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws or regulations. If so, it would appear in the Pac 2nd somewhere as a case. I challenge you to find ANY SUCH CASE.

Montana legislator Rep. Rick Maedje(R)- Fortine, Montana wrote a brilliant post on this matter here:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage227513/pg1

Quote:

---

p.p.s.-if you ever want some real martial arts videos by a real fighter who's "been there, done that", let me know. I like helping people. :).

---

Bas Rutten is that you? :rolleyes:

Bas?! Bas?![ROFL1]
Good ol' Bas. Haven't seen him in a while. He's a good guy. Last I saw of him was before he left to Washington a few years ago. Haven't heard since. He had a kid with a lot of promise (Duane Ludwig) who kinda just fizzled.....

Okay. So I read all you posted. And maybe I'm stupid, but here is a couple things from the link you provided:

Quote:

---

"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.

---

Quote:

---

“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)

---

Quote:

---

“We have held, however, that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). 5 “

---

Thanks for the links, but who knows. Two sides arguing. Ack. I guess I really want(ed) such to be true. Not convinced that it isn't by any means.
Well, at any rate, now I'm a little confused. I'm no lawyer.
Now I read about a place in Texas where they say the same thing (that the Sheriff is King). It's called Freedom County or something along that line.
But who cares? The idea remains the same-
Vote them out. And have no doubt-if a District Court Judge issued a warrant, I would be happy to serve it.
Either way, good idea or bad, at least it's an idea. A lot more than I can say for a lot of the bubbas on the internet who talk all kinds of shit but have no ideas.
I grew up carrying a rifle on my back in the middle of town. Yes, right here in Colorado. In Arvada, too. I miss those days.

*UPDATE*
Sheriff Richard Mack says that the Sheriff does have the ultimate authority. That's all I need to know. If you don't think so or still have questions- simply watch the video.
Kelly- look at 2:45. That's when Sheriff Mack talks about it.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJgPuNAh60
Now I gotta read his book.
Case closed.
Tristan for Sheriff! (not)

There is also no law that formally states that you must pay income taxes (allegedly) but that won't stop anyone from throwing your ass in jail if you don't pay them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturtle

There is also no law that formally states that you must pay income taxes (allegedly) but that won't stop anyone from throwing your ass in jail if you don't pay them.

---

And thats a whole nother topic there!

Look at Kelly bustin' out all the legalese ..