Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds In Their Place

[warpedskydiver 0]

disinter.wordpress.com/2007/02/18/wyoming-sheriffs-put-feds-in-their-place/

February 18, 2007

Here’s one the mainstream media isn’t going to tell you: County sheriffs in Wyoming are demanding that federal agents actually abide by the Constitution, or face arrest.

Even better, a U.S. District Court agreed according to the Keene Free Press:

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association.

The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs.

In fact, they stated, 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.”

Go back and re-read this quote.


The court confirms and asserts 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.”

And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.


Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis comments: “If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”

“I am reacting in response 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.”


The implications are huge:
But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff “has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,”

The Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles.

They are demanding access to all BATF files.

Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.


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 Wyoming state courts.


This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal.

This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States.

It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will 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 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States.”


It appears to me that one office where the Libertarian Party should focus it’s limited resources is County Sheriff.

The change that could be made is nothing to laugh at. Meanwhile, there are still a bunch of nuts wasting valuable resources supporting those that seek offices that will never be won.

[TrophyHusband 0]

does this mean that in california, a sherrif could prevent the feds from busting people for medicinal marijauna? its nice that local jurisdictions have that much power over federal agencies, but what are the limits? can a sherrif prevent the irs from coming after someone who didn't pay their taxes?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[mnealtx 0]

If I'm understanding the quoted article correctly, they would have to go through the appropriate state/county court to gain jurisdiction.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

I've been searching for 30 minutes and cannot find anything relating to the opinion.

I am suspecting that this is a hoax, for I am finding discussions on this dating back to 2000, and showing that the case was closed in 1997.

And, if this is NOT a hoax and the case was from 1997, then there have been subsequent decisions that would have eviscerated this decision, finding that under the commerce clause that the feds can regulate intrastate activities that have long been the province of the individual states' police powers.

If this IS indeed true, though, I think it'd be fantastic.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ryoder 1,590]

Sounds great, but the 10th Amendment contains the "Commerce Clause", and LawRocket has elaborated before on how over time that has been used undermine the states authority by the Feds with the blessing of the courts. See the Wikipdia page for some info on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

The "Commerce Clause" is not in the Tenth Amendment. IT's in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

It's only been in the last 65 years or so that the Commerce Clause has so exploded the federal power.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[happythoughts 0]

Things that I believe about working with the Fed govt:

- The Indians have gotten agreements in writing that would redress grievances caused by the breaking of previous written agreements. Those were broken later.
They lull the opposition into inaction temporarily until they can arrest the opposition leaders.

- The Fed takes taxes away and returns them, IF you follow their rules. If a state loses 30% of the budget because the Sheriff is not being agreeable, the Sheriff will have some new instructions quickly.

- Troops. The Feds also send in troops if they "feel you are violating the constitution" as they perceive it.
Even a few APCs at the Weaver house and Waco.

- Accountability. The idea of "we are uncertain who gave the order to fire, so we cannot assign blame" is of little value to the person that was shot.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I am suspecting that this is a hoax, for I am finding discussions on this dating back to 2000, and showing that the case was closed in 1997.

I would think this would stem back to the Randy Weaver and Waco events and the subsequent happenings where local law enforcement stepped a lot closer to the far right wing militias.. and supremacists.


After 2001 I think they are all marching to the same drum under the Patriot Act.

[lawrocket 3]

I believe that this would stem from the Randy Weaver debacle. Right timeframe and location. It's also the kind of thing that people get gung ho about.

I just have not found anything that suggests that this decision actually happened.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[tbrown 26]

All well and good until the Supreme Court gets a hold of it and tears it all to shreds. Probably Justices Scalia & Clarence Thomas (The Skull & Buckwheat) will write the opinion....

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

[lawrocket]I just have not found anything that suggests that this decision actually happened.

I love a puzzle and a challenge … & when [lawrocket] twice wrote he couldn’t find anything related to the alleged decision, I ‘smelled’ what I hoped was a good one

(Not sure what method you used, assume Google & Lexis-Nexis were in there somewhere.)

Assume that you found this, yes?
http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/posse16.txt, which is admittedly no more authoritative a source than the original posted. It does, however, provide clues ...

While it’s not got the authoritative sense of “Snopes,” it does appear that this alleged case/incident & the associated email/narrartve has been circulating around the internet for at least 8 years: http://beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/20000131/wyoming_sheriff_hoax_revealed.txt.

What appears to be the record of the court in Castaneda v. U.S. (Wy. 1996), i.e., CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-99 notes:

“3/6/97 -- SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE HELD before Magistrate Judge Beaman; case settled (jw) [Entry date 03/10/97]

4/23/97 95 JOINT MOTION by parties to dismiss (jw)

4/29/97 96 ORDER by Honorable William F. Downes granting joint motion to dismiss [95-1] dismissing case,”

While the court record does not provide much information on the specifics of the underlying civil suit, it does note “Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act.”

It is clear that the United Stated federal Govt, Big Horn County, the Big Horn County Sheriff along with INS agents and individual Big Horn County Sherif Deputies were all named jointly as defendants in the case. The 10 plaintiffs, Castaneda, et al. were suing them all.

Based on the fact that 9 out of 15 defendants were Agents of the United States Border Patrol and Immigration and Naturalization Service along with mention of the Civil Rights Act as cause, one can speculate w/r/t the case.

A document, of which I didn’t verify the veracity, makes a general link back to the US Tenth District Court of Appeals adds:

“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.”

“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. 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”

Has the purported policy of the Big Horn County Sheriff, who is no longer Mr. Mattis, ever been used? Subsequently challenged? And under what circumstances? I don't know.

Mr. Casteda (perhaps the same, perhaps not) appears to have had another case involving the INS, which was decided in 1994.

VR/Marg ... btw: search & write-up took my less than 25m while listening to NPR, drinking coffee, watching the rain, deflecting attempt to divert my attention by feline.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying