DEBATE: County Sheriff's Authority

[fedup100]

We have the numbers on this Forum to organize and concentrate our effort on a plan that is easy and swift with its rewards. Are you game? Are you willing to do just two or three simple and local things that will go down in the history as the movement that saved AMERICA?

This is the most important post you will read. This is the information we have all been searching for. WE are at the end of a Constitutional government. The good news is there is a fail proof and easy fix my friends!! This information and action will dovetail perfectly with the states that are standing up to the Fed Gov. There is a silver bullet to all the problems we face in regard to the Federal monster. I am going to give you this info with as few words as possible.

Mods, please sticky this post. People of the Ron Paul movement, please consider adopting this as a one of the plans to freedom and I pray as many as can see will jump on this bandwagon and bring freedom and liberty back to our lives soon.

I have posted similar info before, our path to victory is with our local County Sheriff. WE have the power as the people through the Sheriff to man handle this unconstitutional beast back into the hole it slithered out of. The County Sheriff has all power over all Federal agencies and can deny them access to his county, your door, bank accounts and personal property.

This is what we must do to make this happen quickly, I recommend we do the following to quickly understand how this is possible and we can begin work on this within the week.

There are 3000 County Sheriff, we only need around 500 to turn this thing around.

Here is the plan: Spend a couple of hours to read and listen to a bit of info in order to understand how to do this and why it will work.

1. Listen to this interview of Sheriff Richard Mack that happened today 2/18/09. You may listen to it free on a loop all day today on the GCN on demand archives starting at about 12:00 Pm pacific time today until midnight tonight.

http://www.gcnlive.com/Programs/PowerOfInformation/On_Demand.html


2. Go to Sheriff Mack's site and read all his info and purchase his new book, "The County Sheriff America's Last Hope".

This book is small and inexpensive. The book is an exact blue print and simple plan to get your Sheriff on board. Here is that link:

http://www.sheriffmack.com/index.php/books-by-richard-mack

http://www.sheriffmack.com/


Sheriff Mack's newest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsibility to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government. History, case law, common law and common sense all show clear evidence that the sheriff is the people's protector in all issues of injustice and is responsible for keeping the peace in all matters. He is the last line of defense for his constituents; he is America's last hope to regain our forgotten freedom. This short but powerful book is a must read for all citizens, sheriffs, and government officials that we may all work to return America to the constitutional republic she was meant to be. Amazing as it might be, the sheriff can make this happen!"

2. We need to find out how many Counties in America are represented by Forum members. Next we need to know if that Sheriff is elected or appointed. Appointed Sheriffs are controlled by the Federal Government. We will work to change that in those counties, but for now we need elected Sheriff info. We only need One person willing to take a copy of this book to his County Sheriff.

3. We will need to organize a small group in each County that will focus on the election or re-election of the Sheriff in their County. They will either run a constitutional candidate , run themselves, or make sure through full page local adds that the people in their counties elect a constitutional Sheriff.

3. WE need to raise enough funds to buy cases of this book to place into the Sheriff's hands and to help each county in the re-election of constitutional Sheriffs.

THAT'S IT! I mean this is pretty simple and strait forward. This will give us a specific goal and a purpose to be here. The rewards are freedom.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. I have posted and so have others a story regarding the Wyoming Sheriffs winning a lawsuit against the feds. I have done further research and discovered this stories ending is bogus. This does not affect these plans. Sheriff Mack knows his stuff and we must get on board with him.

Please note a follow up post below for clarification on this Wyoming Sheriff lawsuit. This lawsuit had nothing to do with Sheriff Mack.

[Matt Collins]

Michael Badnarik mentioned to me a few weeks ago that he might be running for sheriff in Texas.

[reduen]

Just ordered the book and I will give it to my county sheriff as soon as it gets here...! Stone County, Arkansas. :cool:

[Sandra]

Michael Badnarik mentioned to me a few weeks ago that he might be running for sheriff in Texas.

Linda Hunnicutt is already spamming boards for donations claiming she's his campaign manager. He needs to let supporters know if she's even involved in this or not or if he's even gonna do it.

[dr. hfn]

we need to hold fundraising for this, bulk order the books, then hand deliver or mail the book to every county sheriff!!!

[wizardwatson]

I like this idea.

It wouldn't be difficult to get a network of 50 groups, one from each state that are RP supporters. We could definitely get at least 1 per county.

[reduen]

we need to hold fundraising for this, bulk order the books, then hand deliver or mail the book to every county sheriff!!!

I am with you on this but I think that it should be mandatory that they be hand delivered to each Sherrif. (Maybe with a flyer letting them know why they should read it.) I know my County Sheriff and he probably does not read any more than he has to. I imagin most are the same....:)

[pinkmandy]

I will do this. If I have enough I'll do some surrounding counties as well. This is important. I can't imagine any sheriff getting a book about sheriffs being America's last hope would decide not to read it. Ego and all. :D

[Matt Collins]

Linda Hunnicutt is already spamming boards for donations claiming she's his campaign manager. He needs to let supporters know if she's even involved in this or not or if he's even gonna do it.

ask him:
scholar@constitutionpreservation.org

[dude58677]

Preamble):
This act intends to hold the US government accountable by the local sheriff for violations of the Constitution and to maintain the sovereignty of local governments.



Section A)

Terms defined in Code:

1) Financial Assets- Any property of monetary value.

2) Seize: The order and execution of confiscating property through a credit agency, credit bureau, and/or bill collector.

3) Perjury- The violation of oath to uphold the US Constitution.

4) Government official- Any person who is employed by the US government such as a US Supreme Court Justice, Federal Judge, US President, Congressional lawmaker, US Attorney or US Attorney General, any goverment agency, or any employee for a Defense Contrator that has taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution.

5) Bill Collector- A person who is employed with a private collection agency that is chosen by the sheriff.


B) Procedure and Enforcement of Act:

1)Any person who in the county has had their rights violated under the Constitution shall file a complaint with the local sheriff's office.

2)The local sheriff has 90 days to review the complaint.

3)If the sheriff does not answer in 90 days the complaint is dismissed.

4)If the Sheriff decides to review the complaint, he shall send a notice to the US government official that a constitutional compaint has been issued in which they will have 20 days to answer.

5) If the Government official takes the case to the Federal Courts, the local sheriff can automatically issue a penalty of $25,000.

6) If no answer is given after 20 days of the notice then a default perjury penalty wil be issued.

7) If the sheriff receives an answer from the government official, he shall have 20 days to review the dispute.

8) If the US Supreme Court or US Federal Judge files an injunction against the sheriff to stop seizing assets. The Supreme Court Justice will be have twice the assets seized.

9) If the bill collector obeys the Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge he shall be fined $10,000.

10) If a government official makes a frivolous argument that the "necessary and proper" clause, "supremacy clause", or "general welfare clause" oversteps or outweighs any of the Bill of Rights shall be fined not more than $250,000.

11) If the sheriff decides that after review that the US Government Official is guilty of Perjury under the Constitution shall pay a fine of not more than $500,000 per offense.

12) There shall be no statute of limitations for this act.

C) Amending process


The county shall amend this Act with 3/4 of the county legistlature.

[Rael]

County sheriffs cannot deny the feds access to the county.

[fedup100]

I appreciate all your efforts as far as this post. Richard Mack is willing to come to any group you can get together in your local area, I will confirm that with him. We really only need for the moment, one person in every county we can account for through a RP forum member that is willing to personally deliver the book.

I will volunteer for my County. The next largest county which is King county Washington has an appointed Sheriff and this must be changed. We need a group to form in this county to make sure future Sheriffs are elected by the people.

First I believe we need to form a working group here on the forum and then decide which is our next move. I think we need a role call of people from the forum as to which county and State they live in and then some funds need to be gathered to fund these books to be delivered.

I am not or have never organized anything like this so please, someone, please step up and help us get this thing going.

I will contact Sheriff Mack in the next few days and let him know our intentions and inquire of him how he can help us get the ball rolling. :cool:

[hillertexas]

County sheriffs cannot deny the feds access to the county.

I think they can.
http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/

The County Sheriff:The Ultimate Check & Balance
When the United States of America was founded the framers spent arduous hours devising a Constitution that would protect future generations from tyranny and government criminality. A system of checks and balances was established to keep all government, especially at the federal level, from becoming too powerful and abusive.

The Bill of Rights was promulgated to augment the limitations previously placed against the government, to further insure that government would stay in its proper domain.

So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!

Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?

The office of sheriff has a long and noble history. It dates back over a thousand years and originated in England. The sheriff is the only elected law enforcement official in America. He is the last line of defense for his citizens. He is the people's protector. He is the keeper of the peace, he is the guardian of liberty and the protector of rights. A vast majority of sheriffs will agree with all of this until they are asked to apply these principles of protection to federal criminals. Their backpeddling and excuses will be more plentiful than radar tickets and louder than sirens at doughnut time. Most of the unbelievers, who themselves have taken a solemn oath to "uphold and defend" the U S Constitution, will passionately and even apologetically exclaim that they have no authority or jurisdiction to tell federal agents to do anything, let alone stop them from victimizing local citizens. The truth and stark reality is that it's just the opposite; the sheriff has ultimate authority and law enforcement power within his jurisdiction. He is to protect and defend his citizens from all enemies, both "foreign and domestic."

Of course, there are those who will maintain that the feds have not and will not commit crimes against law-abiding citizens in this country, the IRS notwithstanding. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that the government did nothing wrong at the Branch Davidian church in Waco or at Ruby Ridge, Idaho when citizens were killed. Those incidents have been debated and will be forever. However, the immutable truth about both tragedies remains that if the local sheriff had remained in charge of both incidents, not one person would have died, including federal agents, and the law would
still have been enforced.

Despite the frequency or the severity of government abuses, if they were to happen in your county, would your sheriff intervene? Well, don't look now, but they are already occurring and some sheriffs have indeed taken very courageous stands against the feds coming in to their counties to "enforce" their laws. Cattle, lands, homes, bank accounts, cash, and even children have been seized and prisons filled all in the name of federal enforcement of EPA rules, The Endangered Species Act, IRS rules, (of which there are over 10 million pages) Forest Service and Dept. of the Interior technicalities and the list goes on and on. The sheriff of NYE County, Nevada stopped federal agents from seizing a rancher's cattle and even threatened to arrest the feds if they proceeded against his orders. Sheriffs in Wyoming have told the agents of all federal bureaus to check with them before serving any papers, making any arrests, or confiscating any property. Why? because they are doing their jobs that's why! It's just another way to provide checks and balances that ultimately protect and help citizens.

Criminality within the IRS has been well documented. Hearings about such crimes were held before congress in 1998. IRS employees testified of hundreds of crimes being committed against law-abiding citizens. Congress did nothing about it. They were too busy checking Monica Lewinsky's dress. The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?

Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they
decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "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." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)

Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.

It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[Rael]

It's already been determined that this thing with the Wyoming sherriff is a hoax.


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

[fedup100]

It's already been determined that this thing with the Wyoming sherriff is a hoax.


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

This was at the end of my post. That was not a hoax, it was an actual lawsuit. How, who or why someone would alter the end of this suit is a mystery. The suit was settled by all parties before it could go any further.

You on the other hand are a louse and an instigator. Shoo, get the hell off this thread, you don't belong here and you are here to try your best to stop an effort that will make a difference!

[Rael]

You on the other hand are a louse and an instigator. Shoo, get the hell off this thread, you don't belong here and you are here to try your best to stop an effort that will make a difference!

:rolleyes: I'm trying to bring some reality to the thread. I don't see any objective evidence that sheriffs can override the federal government. Have you heard of the Supremacy Clause? I also can't find an independent source to verify a Nye County sheriff supposedly threatening to arrest federal agents.

[fedup100]

:rolleyes: I'm trying to bring some reality to the thread. I don't see any objective evidence that sheriffs can override the federal government. Have you heard of the Supremacy Clause? I also can't find an independent source to verify a Nye County sheriff supposedly threatening to arrest federal agents.

Again, you are here to place doubt, to stir the pot, to instigate. Sheriff Mack knows what he is talking about, he was a Sheriff, he sued the feds and won and he wrote the book.

If you cannot bring something good to this thread then go away. You wont go away will you, your intentions are obvious.

I recently had a conversation in regards to the trolls that would come out to attack this effort should I post it. And here you are.

I am going out of my way to not rip you a new *(&^$hole, so plseas shoo......

[Sandra]

Again, you are here to place doubt, to stir the pot, to instigate. Sheriff Mack knows what he is talking about, he was a Sheriff, he sued the feds and won and he wrote the book.

If you cannot bring something good to this thread then go away. You wont go away will you, your intentions are obvious.

I recently had a conversation in regards to the trolls that would come out to attack this effort should I post it. And here you are.

I am going out of my way to not rip you a new *(&^$hole, so plseas shoo......


Sorry but you are in fact incorrect about this. The story was blown out of proportion by blogs that played the rumor game. The judge then sent a legal document clarifying what was twisted:

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

[Rael]

Again, you are here to place doubt, to stir the pot, to instigate. Sheriff Mack knows what he is talking about, he was a Sheriff, he sued the feds and won and he wrote the book.

If you cannot bring something good to this thread then go away. You wont go away will you, your intentions are obvious.

I recently had a conversation in regards to the trolls that would come out to attack this effort should I post it. And here you are.

I am going out of my way to not rip you a new *(&^$hole, so plseas shoo......

The lawsuit resulted in a ruling that state officials can't be made to enforce federal law. It does not place any restrictions on how the federal government can enforce laws inside counties. Instead of presenting information to contradict me and support your position, you resort to calling me a louse and a troll. At this point it seems to me that you are just trying to sell a book.

[fedup100]

I am proud to announce we must be on to something because the attacks have already started. WE are going forward! WHOOOOOOHO!!!!! :D

[fedup100]

I think they can.
http://constitutionallawenforcementassoc.blogspot.com/

Hiller, this is one of the most insightful posts on this subject. Thank you for it and keep them coming.

I will posting further good news on this subject soon I hope after I communicate with Mack.

[fedup100]

Michael Badnarik mentioned to me a few weeks ago that he might be running for sheriff in Texas.

He would be fantastic as Sheriff. He also knows of the power of the people through our elected Sheriffs. I would like to get Ron Paul's take on this. :p

[fedup100]

Just ordered the book and I will give it to my county sheriff as soon as it gets here...! Stone County, Arkansas. :cool:

Thank you for the role call. Hope we can put out a general role call soon. Please people, we just need one of you per local county in your area willing to take the book and give it to your local Sheriff.

[Rael]

I am proud to announce we must be on to something because the attacks have already started. WE are going forward! WHOOOOOOHO!!!!! :D

If you are on to something, how about showing some evidence for it?

You come and post a thread wanting people to purchase a book based on a premise that is false. Then when questioned you show no inclination whatsoever to defend your position with facts. I suspect that you have a financial interest in the sale of this book, and that you are using this forum for free advertising.

[pinkmandy]

I am proud to announce we must be on to something because the attacks have already started. WE are going forward! WHOOOOOOHO!!!!! :D

Might be. Regardless, a book educating sheriffs to work w/locals to stand against what could be a martial law scenario in the future is a good thing. "No, they are not sending in troops to HELP you...."

If you buy 3 they are only 8 bucks each. I can handle a few counties around here. I might even include a note letting each one know who else I sent it to and their contact information in case they want to have a regional pow wow or something. ;)

[pinkmandy]

If you are on to something, how about showing some evidence for it?

You come and post a thread wanting people to purchase a book based on a premise that is false. Then when questioned you show no inclination whatsoever to defend your position with facts. I suspect that you have a financial interest in the sale of this book, and that you are using this forum for free advertising.

False premise? I guess I have some reading up to do...

[fedup100]

we need to hold fundraising for this, bulk order the books, then hand deliver or mail the book to every county sheriff!!!

Thank you for your support. I agree. I think hand deliver is a must. The books are small and inexpensive. We can get a nice price on a large order. developing...........

[fedup100]

I like this idea.

It wouldn't be difficult to get a network of 50 groups, one from each state that are RP supporters. We could definitely get at least 1 per county.

Sounds like a plan. :D

[Sandra]

Thank you for your support. I agree. I think hand deliver is a must. The books are small and inexpensive. We can get a nice price on a large order. developing...........


Fedup, are you getting a cut of these book sales? Because you're really wigging out at the slightest rebuttal.

[fedup100]

Might be. Regardless, a book educating sheriffs to work w/locals to stand against what could be a martial law scenario in the future is a good thing. "No, they are not sending in troops to HELP you...."

If you buy 3 they are only 8 bucks each. I can handle a few counties around here. I might even include a note letting each one know who else I sent it to and their contact information in case they want to have a regional pow wow or something. ;)

Pink, you are the best and wow, you have so much common sense! Thank you for the role call. :)

[Rael]

Fedup, are you getting a cut of these book sales? Because you're really wigging out at the slightest rebuttal.

He just stated above that he could get a good deal on a bulk order. He's pushing the sale of the book harder than the idea itself.

[LibertyEagle]

Fedup, are you getting a cut of these book sales? Because you're really wigging out at the slightest rebuttal.

Oh c'mon. No, she's not getting a cut from the book sales. She's trying to actually get something together here for us to really do something positive. She talked to me about it the other day and I suggested she write it up. She did. Thus, this thread.

That said, this is a planning thread. If you do not want to participate, don't. If you want to debate the merits of this initiative, please feel free to start your own thread.

Thanks.

[fedup100]

Fedup, are you getting a cut of these book sales? Because you're really wigging out at the slightest rebuttal.

No I'm not. I have met Sheriff Mack maybe 15 years ago and know of him and his brave work. I had spoken to some people recently about my belief that this is our only chance at stopping the Fed gov peacefully. They encouraged me to post this so I did.

This forum and the people on it need to focus on ONE thing that can make a real difference. LOCAL LEVEL and the SHERIFF is a winner and it dovetails with the states that are re-establishing states rights.

This forum and the wonderful people who frequent here, should they choose this assignment and go with it as they did Paul, would create a firestorm across the country.

I am pushing this because I believe in it. The troll that has suggested that I am financially involved has done his work. I am battling this louse on this thread as I am sure you can see.

This kind of troll work is classic, they know the danger should we organize and tackle them on a local level.

[fedup100]

He just stated above that he could get a good deal on a bulk order. He's pushing the sale of the book harder than the idea itself.

Actually, I read that on the link to purchase the book. Duh!! :(

[fedup100]

Oh c'mon. No, she's not getting a cut from the book sales. She's trying to actually get something together here for us to really do something positive. She talked to me about it the other day and I suggested she write it up. She did. Thus, this thread.

That said, this is a planning thread. If you do not want to participate, don't. If you want to debate the merits of this initiative, please feel free to start your own thread.

Thanks.

Sometimes a mod has gotta be mean! :D

[Sandra]

No I'm not. I have met Sheriff Mack maybe 15 years ago and know of him and his brave work. I had spoken to some people recently about my belief that this is our only chance at stopping the Fed gov peacefully. They encouraged me to post this so I did.

This forum and the people on it need to focus on ONE thing that can make a real difference. LOCAL LEVEL and the SHERIFF is a winner and it dovetails with the states that are re-establishing states rights.

This forum and the wonderful people who frequent here, should they choose this assignment and go with it as they did Paul, would create a firestorm across the country.

I am pushing this because I believe in it. The troll that has suggested that I am financially involved has done his work. I am battling this louse on this thread as I am sure you can see.

This kind of troll work is classic, they know the danger should we organize and tackle them on a local level.


It's your namecalling that make us suspicious.

Liberty Eagle, you may be doing an injustice. There are filed state documents that state that this claim was falsified. This could undermine anything else we do. Just fair warning.

[pinkmandy]

From the site:


Sheriff Mack's newest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government. History, case law, common law and common sense all show clear evidence that the sheriff is the people's protector in all issues of injustice and is responsible for keeping the peace in all matters. He is the last line of defense for his constituents; he is America's last hope to regain our forgotten freedom. This short but powerful book is a must read for all citizens, sheriffs, and government officials that we may all work to return America to the constitutional republic she was meant to be. Amazing as it might be, the sheriff can make this happen!"

If sheriffs in every state came together to resist federal military incursion...if it should come to that...

We should AT LEAST get each one the info to get him/her THINKING that way before SHTF. God knows they're probably getting plenty of info from DHS and FEMA already. It's not so much about what he can do right now but the mindset we'd want our sheriffs to have in the future.

[Rael]

No I'm not. I have met Sheriff Mack maybe 15 years ago and know of him and his brave work. I had spoken to some people recently about my belief that this is our only chance at stopping the Fed gov peacefully. They encouraged me to post this so I did.

This forum and the people on it need to focus on ONE thing that can make a real difference. LOCAL LEVEL and the SHERIFF is a winner and it dovetails with the states that are re-establishing states rights.

This forum and the wonderful people who frequent here, should they choose this assignment and go with it as they did Paul, would create a firestorm across the country.

I am pushing this because I believe in it. The troll that has suggested that I am financially involved has done his work. I am battling this louse on this thread as I am sure you can see.

This kind of troll work is classic, they know the danger should we organize and tackle them on a local level.

How about instead of calling me a troll, present some evidence that your plan will even work? You call me a troll, yet you are the only one in the thread engaging in name calling. Your thread and the reason behind it is based on this premise:

"The County Sheriff has all power over all Federal agencies and can deny them access to his county, your door, bank accounts and personal property."

I have already shown this to be false. The fact that you "believe in it" does not make your position correct. I have attempted repeatedly to get you to offer contradictory evidence and you refuse to do so.At best you are spreading false information and encouraging people to waste their time on a lost cause, and at worse, simply spamming the forum.

[fedup100]

It's your namecalling that make us suspicious.

Liberty Eagle, you may be doing an injustice. There are filed state documents that state that this claim was falsified. This could undermine anything else we do. Just fair warning.

Sandra, it's his trolling that makes me suspicious.

I referenced the Wyoming case in a P.S. at the bottom of the op. I found the same thing rael found and do not know what is true or not. Either way, it has nothing to do with our using Sheriff Mack's book to focus locally on our Sheriffs and make sure they are constitutional sheriff's and follow the constitution.

The piece on the Wyoming sheriffs came out as a news release a few years back. other than that I know nothing of it. We need to remember how things are changed and screwed with constantly on the web.

The Wyoming thing has no bearing on what we are doing, but I would like to know the skinny on it. I may call them.

[Sandra]

Richard Mack was successful in overturning the Brady Bill in Utah.

[fedup100]

How about instead of calling me a troll, present some evidence that your plan will even work? You call me a troll, yet you are the only one in the thread engaging in name calling. Your thread and the reason behind it is based on this premise:

"The County Sheriff has all power over all Federal agencies and can deny them access to his county, your door, bank accounts and personal property."

I have already shown this to be false. The fact that you "believe in it" does not make your position correct. I have attempted repeatedly to get you to offer contradictory evidence and you refuse to do so.At best you are spreading false information and encouraging people to waste their time on a lost cause, and at worse, simply spamming the forum.

Rael, could you have the Wyoming Sheriiff suit and Sheriff Mack mixed up as one case?

Let me just say, the Wyoming case has NOTHING to do with Sheriff Mack. You may have a good point that the Wyoming suit is a hoax, that is what I said in my P.S. at the bottom of my op. I will contact the Wyoming Sheriffs myself, who knows if it is real or not, but I will find out.

Sheriff Mack is the Sheriff who sued the Federal Government in regards to the Brady Bill and the supreme court ruled in his favor( Mack/Printz v USA, ). You can thank him and the Montana Sheriff that filed with him for our rights to still carry. More importantly though, that suit clearly spelled out the following.......


Hanging in the balance in the Printz case was the survival of states as states, rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

"No one will take the Constitution seriously if Congress and the courts refuse to do so," observes Professor Merritt. [61] The Brady Act's unprecedented assault on the states and on constitutional federalism was the result of decades of Supreme Court refusal to take federalism seriously. Printz, like Lopez and other 1990s cases in which a slender Court majority has begun to enforce constitutional limits on federal power, is welcome not just because an unconstitutional law was stricken. Just as the Supreme Court's consistent and commendable attention to the First Amendment has raised popular consciousness about the importance of free speech, the Court's renewed attention to the limits of federal power will remind both citizens and legislators that the powers that the People granted to Congress in the Constitution are specific and finite. And those powers surely do not include the power to dragoon state employees into federal service.

Further, Hiller posted the specific's of Mack's case per the supreme's.............


The point remains, if any abuse occurs in your county by federal officials; does your sheriff have the guts and the authority to protect and defend you? Does that question not sound redundant? Is he not bound by oath to do just that?

Yes, he has the right and the duty to do so. In Mack/Printz v USA, the U S Supreme Court declared that the states or their political subdivisions, "are not subject to federal direction." The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy. In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined. The feds have their assignments within constitutional boundaries and the states have theirs, as well. Scalia also mentions this, "It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of dual sovereignty" and that the states retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they
decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

But what happens when the inevitable occurs; when the feds get too abusive and attempt to control every facet of our lives? The Mack/Printz decision answers this also. "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." To quote Madison again Scalia writes, "Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." (The Federalist # 51) So the state governments are actually and literally charged with controlling the federal government. To do so is "one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty." (Emphasis added)

Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.

It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Rael, if you had these two things confused then I apologize for calling you a louse. Had you read Hillers post, it is obvious that the Sheriff DOES have authority over the Federal Government. I suggest that you take more time to carefully read the posts before you come to a conclusion

I just re-posted the Supreme Courts ruling in favor of Sheriff Mack and in favor of all Sheriff's in all USA counties to take control of the Federal monster if he gets out of control. That time has come. Please join us.

[hillertexas]

JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478
v.
UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

http://www.freeople.com/blog/the-county-sheriff-federal-sock-puppet-or-guardian-liberty-find-out/900
A tool to help you find out if a potential Sheriff would use his powers for good or evil:

County Sheriff Candidate Questionnaire

1. Where does the County Sheriff derive his authority from?

2. What are the proper roles and functions of federal, state and local law enforcement? How do these agencies determine their jurisdictional boundaries when their duties intersect?

3. What local circumstances do you think would justify a request for federal law enforcement assistance by a county Sheriff? What level of authority does the county Sheriff retain after federal authorities are present?

4. Are there any conditions that you believe justify disarming of lawful citizens?

5. What would be your basic policy on the following issues?

*Suspicion-less Checkpoints (safety, sobriety, license/insurance, seatbelt, illicit drug checks, roadside “voluntary” surveys etc.)?

*Privatization of traditional law enforcement duties (warrant processing, prison management)?

* The 2nd amendment and “gun free zones”

6. How do you plan to handle asset forfeiture in order to ensure that your department stays ethical?

7. In your opinion, does the process of seeking or accepting Federal Grants have the potential to cause a conflict of interest for local law enforcement? If so, how can the process be balanced in a way that would preserve natural, local authority?

8. The US holds 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s incarcerated. More than 1 in 100 Americans are currently imprisoned giving the U.S. the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. What are the reasons for this and what can or should be about the situation?

[Rael]

Rael, could you have the Wyoming Sheriiff suit and Sheriff Mack mixed up as one case?

Let me just say, the Wyoming case has NOTHING to do with Sheriff Mack. You may have a good point that the Wyoming suit is a hoax, that is what I said in my P.S. at the bottom of my op. I will contact the Wyoming Sheriffs myself, who knows if it is real or not, but I will find out.

Sheriff Mack is the Sheriff who sued the Federal Government in regards to the Brady Bill and the supreme court ruled in his favor( Mack/Printz v USA, ). You can thank him and the Montana Sheriff that filed with him for our rights to still carry. More importantly though, that suit clearly spelled out the following.......



Further, Hiller posted the specific's of Mack's case per the supreme's.............



Rael, if you had these two things confused then I apologize for calling you a louse. Had you read Hillers post, it is obvious that the Sheriff DOES have authority over the Federal Government. I suggest that you take more time to carefully read the posts before you come to a conclusion

I just re-posted the Supreme Courts ruling in favor of Sheriff Mack and in favor of all Sheriff's in all USA counties to take control of the Federal monster if he gets out of control. That time has come. Please join us.


The SC in Prinzt v US ruled that the states cannot be made to enforce federal law. There is nothing in the decision that that prevents the federal government from enforcing federal law itself. There also is nothing in this decision that gives a sheriff authority, as you claim, to "deny them access to his county, your door, bank accounts and personal property." Due to the Prinzt decision the sheriff and local officials cannot be made to participate in those acts, but this does not really matter because the government can use the courts and federal law enforcement to do the work for them. If a sheriff interferes with feds enforcing the law, they will simply arrest him. George Wallace tried interfering with the federal government, and troops were sent in.

[Sandra]

fedup, I still believe you are confused by the rulings of both cases. Neither gave ANY authority to any sheriff. It just absolved sheriffs' departments from participation. Mack is credited for overturning of part of the Brady Bill, which is a great accomplishment .

[pcosmar]

The very best thing that could possibly happen is that a Sheriff somewhere would take a stand and force the Fed to attack.
Then the people would seen the Fed for what it is.
This country Needs to confront the Federal monster, and put it in it's place.

[fedup100]

fedup, I still believe you are confused by the rulings of both cases. Neither gave ANY authority to any sheriff. It just absolved sheriffs' departments from participation. Mack is credited for overturning of part of the Brady Bill, which is a great accomplishment .


There was no ruling in the Wyoming case. I am not confused, but I think you and Rael are trying your best to combine these cases. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MACK"S CASE! Mack had nothing to do with the Wyoming case, PERIOD!! Let it go, how much plainer can I be!

Are you and Rael the authority on a Sheriff's power in his county as it relates to the Federal Government. If you are please step up and show your credentials and proof. Apparently Sheriff Mack needs some assistance from the two of you, he couldn't possibly know what he is talking about, but the two of you do?

Sheriff Mack sued the Fed Gov regarding the Brady bill and won at the SC level. This suit though went further than just the Brady bill, it re-established the power of the Sheriff OVER the feds and detailed the incredible lack of power the Fed Gov actually has.

Did either of you actually read the words of Judge Scalia? You could not have read it and have this position.

Do you really think this man Richard Mack would have written this book and spent the last 20 years of his life attempting to educate the masses as to the power of the County Sheriff to free you from the tyranny of the Feds if it was not true?

What part of this statement below do you not understand. This case went further than Brady in proving the states are sovereign.......


Sheriff Mack is the Sheriff who sued the Federal Government in regards to the Brady Bill and the supreme court ruled in his favor( Mack/Printz v USA, ). You can thank him and the Montana Sheriff that filed with him for our rights to still carry. More importantly though, that suit clearly spelled out the following.......

Hanging in the balance in the Printz case was the survival of states as states, rather than as administrative subdivisions of the federal government.


Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit .......


in quoting the Tenth Amendment which affirms the limited powers doctrine. To clarify this point, we need to understand that the powers and jurisdiction granted to the federal government are few, precise, and expressly defined.

Scalia even goes so far as to detail who is responsible to keep the federal government in their proper place, if or when they decide to go beyond their allotted authority. In doing so he quotes James Madison, considered to be the father of our Constitution, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority [federal government] than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." (The Federalist # 39) Thus, the federal government has no more authority to compel the states or the counties to do anything, no more so than the Prime Minister of Canada has.

How much plainer can this be?

[reduen]

Don't let a couple of folks ruin your efforts here. I for one still think that it is a great idea and am going to follow through. I will read the book when it arrives and if all is well, I will take it to as many County Sheriffs around here that I can.

I am so tired of being ignored by those who are supposed to represent us...!

Does anybody realize how much of our money the government has given to the wealthiest of people in our society? The Federal Government could have given my family of four $140,000.00 so far with the money that they have spent...! How many houses could have been paid off and/or foreclosure avoided with that kind of money?

This is not to speak of all the liberty that has been lost to what is supposed to be a servant government...! Something must be done to change things or we will no longer be the "land of the free"! (Of this I am certain....)

[Cleaner44]

:rolleyes: I'm trying to bring some reality to the thread. I don't see any objective evidence that sheriffs can override the federal government. Have you heard of the Supremacy Clause? I also can't find an independent source to verify a Nye County sheriff supposedly threatening to arrest federal agents.

Do you have some evidence that the Federal Govt can override the County Sheriff?

[hillertexas]

Rael,
In your opinion, why did FEMA wait to be asked by local before going in to help with Katrina?

Fedup,
I fear that your thread is being muddled. If you would allow me to make a suggestion,
I suggest splitting it in 2 threads, one for debate and one for only planning.

I guess first we need to confirm the powers of the sheriff in a short, concise way and move forward with what your excellent thread started...planning/action.

I think we are on to something here, guys. Let's try and confirm it.

Educate existing sheriffs. It might be like jury nullification...the sheriff might not know his real power.
Start a website to track sheriffs' info.
Get to know and profile existing sheriffs.
Vote out the bad ones. When are the elections?
Free this country county by county.

We put up a damn good fight for the election of the President...we should have no problem effecting smaller elections.

[sratiug]

Let's say I owe taxes to the feds (I don't) and the feds come to arrest me. I call the sheriff. He arrests them for attempted kidnapping. What would happen?

My state constitution says you cannot be jailed for oweing (sp?) money. So any attempted arrest of me by the feds for that reason would naturally be unconstitutional.

[reduen]

Let's say I owe taxes to the feds (I don't) and the feds come to arrest me. I call the sheriff. He arrests them for attempted kidnapping. What would happen?

My state constitution says you cannot be jailed for oweing (sp?) money. So any attempted arrest of me by the feds for that reason would naturally be unconstitutional.

In this case, you could be appointed the next United States Secretary of the Treasury...! In fact, cheating on your taxes qualifies you to one of the many positions of the Presidents Cabinet these days haven't you heard?

[Sandra]

Let's say I owe taxes to the feds (I don't) and the feds come to arrest me. I call the sheriff. He arrests them for attempted kidnapping. What would happen?

My state constitution says you cannot be jailed for oweing (sp?) money. So any attempted arrest of me by the feds for that reason would naturally be unconstitutional.

The feds just sent my Dad a letter back when he owed. They didn't send anyone out to get him.

[Sandra]

In this case, you could be appointed the next United States Secretary of the Treasury...! In fact, cheating on your taxes qualifies you to one of the many positions of the Presidents Cabinet these days haven't you heard?

I've been doing it wrong, then.

[Rael]

There was no ruling in the Wyoming case. I am not confused, but I think you and Rael are trying your best to combine these cases. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MACK"S CASE! Mack had nothing to do with the Wyoming case, PERIOD!! Let it go, how much plainer can I be!

Are you and Rael the authority on a Sheriff's power in his county as it relates to the Federal Government. If you are please step up and show your credentials and proof. Apparently Sheriff Mack needs some assistance from the two of you, he couldn't possibly know what he is talking about, but the two of you do?

Sheriff Mack sued the Fed Gov regarding the Brady bill and won at the SC level. This suit though went further than just the Brady bill, it re-established the power of the Sheriff OVER the feds and detailed the incredible lack of power the Fed Gov actually has.

Did either of you actually read the words of Judge Scalia? You could not have read it and have this position.

Do you really think this man Richard Mack would have written this book and spent the last 20 years of his life attempting to educate the masses as to the power of the County Sheriff to free you from the tyranny of the Feds if it was not true?

What part of this statement below do you not understand. This case went further than Brady in proving the states are sovereign.......




Scalia then quotes the basis of the sheriffs' suit .......



How much plainer can this be?

You are misinterpreting what Scalia is saying. Nowhere in there does he assert that local officials have authority over federal officials. The rulling is that feds do not have authority over state officials to make them enforce federal law. You are taking this really and reading into it what you want to hear. If you insist that sherriffs have this authority, please point to the specific case law or specific statement from Scalia giving this authority. He does not say this in the text you posted.

[constituent]

question at the heart of the matter:

are or are not the feds required to first contact county/local authorities before executing police actions w/in said authorities' jurisdiction?

[Rael]

question at the heart of the matter:

are or are not the feds required to first contact county/local authorities before executing police actions w/in said authorities' jurisdiction?

I've never seen any statutory or case law indicating that this is the case. that would seem to run up against the Supremacy Clause. To my knowlege this is only done as a courtesy.

[constituent]

I've never seen any statutory or case law indicating that this is the case. that would seem to run up against the Supremacy Clause. To my knowlege this is only done as a courtesy.

is there a law requiring it to be done? dunno. would like to know though.

what matters, courtesy or not, is that is done... hence the importance of a friendly sheriff (pref. with your phone number handy).

now, if there is no law requiring that it be done, how would one go about drafting a bill for introduction into the house? what sort of language would you include?

[Sandra]

is there a law requiring it to be done? dunno. would like to know though.

what matters, courtesy or not, is that is done... hence the importance of a friendly sheriff (pref. with your phone number handy).

now, if there is no law requiring that it be done, how would one go about drafting a bill for introduction into the house? what sort of language would you include?


It would be wise to contact local law enforcement to assist or else someone (or a neighbor) could misconstrue an armed presence as an attempted home invasion. Many agents opt to show up in those stupid black t shirts with FBI printed on them, problem is, so do robbers in order to gain access to the home and throw off suspicion from witnesses.

[fedup100]

Great interview on John Statmiller today with Sheriff Richard Mack. The link below is hour 1 and 2 of the first show on the page. The second hour is more detailed as to the Sheriff's authority.


question at the heart of the matter:

are or are not the feds required to first contact county/local authorities before executing police actions w/in said authorities' jurisdiction?

Mack says if you disagree with him or believe he is wrong email him at sheriffmack@hotmail, he cannot wait to answer your email.

Please for all interested in this subject, hear it from the mans own mouth at this link, it's free!

http://republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=1&year=9&month=2&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%252 6ProgramID%253D1%26year%3D9%26backURL%3Dindex.php% 253Fcmd%253Darchives

[fedup100]

I've never seen any statutory or case law indicating that this is the case. that would seem to run up against the Supremacy Clause. To my knowlege this is only done as a courtesy.

The problem with police is they are brainwashed to believe what their superiors tell them. Are you police? As Mack says, they do not think for themselves and few wake up to the money making con of taxation through citation.

Mack reaffirmed today on the National Intel report, The Sheriff has all authority, is the last authority in his County, can send the IRS packing and should and answers only to the people. The courtesy crap is just that as we have spiraled down into the hole of tyranny, these local police that bow to the feds are traitors to the people and the constitution and must be rousted out.

If you disagree with him then email him and tell him where he has gone astray. He said he will be delighted to show you where you are wrong.

sheriffmack@hotmail

[Rael]

The problem with police is they are brainwashed to believe what their superiors tell them. Are you police? As Mack says, they do not think for themselves and few wake up to the money making con of taxation through citation.

Mack reaffirmed today on the National Intel report, The Sheriff has all authority, is the last authority in his County, can send the IRS packing and should and answers only to the people. The courtesy crap is just that as we have spiraled down into the hole of tyranny, these local police that bow to the feds are traitors to the people and the constitution and must be rousted out.

If you disagree with him then email him and tell him where he has gone astray. He said he will be delighted to show you where you are wrong.

sheriffmack@hotmail

As someone who is supporting this idea so strongly, I would think that you would have already emailed him and be able to explain yourself how I am wrong. There could be a role for sheriffs to play, but they have nowhere near the power you are suggesting. This thread is 7 pages now and you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your assertion that the sheriff has authority to tell the feds to do anything. Basically your argument boils down to "Sherriff Mack said so." Sherrif Mack may be a fine guy, but I'm not going to pay for a book to get information that is already free and readily available (case law, statutory law, etc). There's no point in debating this with you further as it is clear that such evidence is not forthcoming. It's none of my business if someone wants to participate in this. However, you are asking people to commit time, energy and money into something and are setting unrealistic expectations as to what they can achieve. Hopefully people will take a critical view of the idea before deciding whether this is a wise use of their time and money.

[reduen]

You got a better idea? Criticism is only constructive if you have an alternative suggestion. (Usually one that you think is better...)

You appear to be up to nothing but trouble here. Hash out your problems with the Sheriff himself if you like and then come back and let us know where he is wrong.. That would be more constructive.... :)

[RCA]

I like this concept.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

As someone who is supporting this idea so strongly, I would think that you would have already emailed him and be able to explain yourself how I am wrong. There could be a role for sheriffs to play, but they have nowhere near the power you are suggesting. This thread is 7 pages now and you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your assertion that the sheriff has authority to tell the feds to do anything. Basically your argument boils down to "Sherriff Mack said so." Sherrif Mack may be a fine guy, but I'm not going to pay for a book to get information that is already free and readily available (case law, statutory law, etc). There's no point in debating this with you further as it is clear that such evidence is not forthcoming. It's none of my business if someone wants to participate in this. However, you are asking people to commit time, energy and money into something and are setting unrealistic expectations as to what they can achieve. Hopefully people will take a critical view of the idea before deciding whether this is a wise use of their time and money.

Rael makes good sound points and gets ridiculed. It's appalling. After reading through this thread here is what I see.

Fedup: Hey I got the best idea ever.
Rael: Can you show some evidence to support your idea.
Fedup: FU, you troll, get the the hell out. Buy the book.
Rael: Ya, but what about the evidence...
Fedup: Here is an exceprt with excerpts of a ruling... now go flake off you troll...
Rael: Ya, but where does that even say local authorities have authority over the federal government.
Fedup: Can't you read?

Give me a break. Since when did we become unwilling to talk about the merits and finer points of an issue. Forgive me for not throwing all fucking caution to the wind and jumping on the bandwagon to post a rave. However I am going to address this particular post...



Let's say I owe taxes to the feds (I don't) and the feds come to arrest me. I call the sheriff. He arrests them for attempted kidnapping. What would happen?

My state constitution says you cannot be jailed for oweing (sp?) money. So any attempted arrest of me by the feds for that reason would naturally be unconstitutional.

Well this kind of goes to the heart of the matter. Fedup would likely agree with you however the truth is somewhere in the definition of jurisdiction (which is a word I have used a lot in this forum).

The constitution confers enumerated powers to the federal government and the federal governments authority with regards to those powers is absolute. So with regards to federal taxes the feds have the authority to enforce their enumerated power regardless of what the sheriff thinks.

The states and local government also have powers enumerated in the constitution, state constitutions, and and state laws, etc. The fed does not have jurisdiction in these matters.

But to think the federal government can't exercise their absolute enumerated powers because a sheriff has authority over the fed is absurd. Neither has authority over the other. They have separate jurisdictions and separate powers.

Now I am not saying the idea of the OP is bad because it's not. Local organization has been discussed in several threads. Personally I have long held the position the enforcement comes at you from a local level most of the time (and by that infer higher levels of government usually obtain the cooperation of local law enforcement). I am certainly not opposed to sheriffs who do not wish to cooperate or would assert a watchful eye on activities of federal government to insure their enforcement remains within their lawful jurisdictions.

I do however object to beating the shit out of people who don't jump on your bandwagon because they raise good points. It is the tone in the thread I object to.

[pcosmar]

Well this kind of goes to the heart of the matter.

But to think the federal government can't exercise their absolute enumerated powers because a sheriff has authority over the fed is absurd.

I would love to get to the heart of the matter also.
I snipped out some of your quote. This is what struck me.

Would you mind posting those "absolute enumerated powers" for us.
I am especially concerned with the Law Enforcement powers, since that is the subject at hand.
Thanks.

[Rael]

Rael makes good sound points and gets ridiculed. It's appalling. After reading through this thread here is what I see.

Fedup: Hey I got the best idea ever.
Rael: Can you show some evidence to support your idea.
Fedup: FU, you troll, get the the hell out. Buy the book.
Rael: Ya, but what about the evidence...
Fedup: Here is an exceprt with excerpts of a ruling... now go flake off you troll...
Rael: Ya, but where does that even say local authorities have authority over the federal government.
Fedup: Can't you read?

Give me a break. Since when did we become unwilling to talk about the merits and finer points of an issue. Forgive me for not throwing all fucking caution to the wind and jumping on the bandwagon to post a rave. However I am going to address this particular post...



Well this kind of goes to the heart of the matter. Fedup would likely agree with you however the truth is somewhere in the definition of jurisdiction (which is a word I have used a lot in this forum).

The constitution confers enumerated powers to the federal government and the federal governments authority with regards to those powers is absolute. So with regards to federal taxes the feds have the authority to enforce their enumerated power regardless of what the sheriff thinks.

The states and local government also have powers enumerated in the constitution, state constitutions, and and state laws, etc. The fed does not have jurisdiction in these matters.

But to think the federal government can't exercise their absolute enumerated powers because a sheriff has authority over the fed is absurd. Neither has authority over the other. They have separate jurisdictions and separate powers.

Now I am not saying the idea of the OP is bad because it's not. Local organization has been discussed in several threads. Personally I have long held the position the enforcement comes at you from a local level most of the time (and by that infer higher levels of government usually obtain the cooperation of local law enforcement). I am certainly not opposed to sheriffs who do not wish to cooperate or would assert a watchful eye on activities of federal government to insure their enforcement remains within their lawful jurisdictions.

I do however object to beating the shit out of people who don't jump on your bandwagon because they raise good points. It is the tone in the thread I object to.

Thanks! I would just like to clarify that I think local organization could be extremely beneficial. Although the sheriff could take no affirmative action to stop the feds, he certainly can exercise his prerogative not to cooperate, and perhaps make things a pain in the ass for the feds(although he may be reluctant to do so...it's quid pro quo, and local law enforcement likes being able to rely on assistance from federal law enforcement). Also the sheriff could play a role in state matters, by refusing to enforce silly state laws like drug enforcement, etc., depending on how much flexibility the laws of his state provide him in carrying out his duties. But as when it comes to actively taking on the federal government, we need to look for other solutions.

[Rael]

I would love to get to the heart of the matter also.
I snipped out some of your quote. This is what struck me.

Would you mind posting those "absolute enumerated powers" for us.
I am especially concerned with the Law Enforcement powers, since that is the subject at hand.
Thanks.

This might help. From the wiki on the Supremacy Clause:

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The Constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

And from the article on preemption:

In the legal system of the United States, preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that The Laws of the United States, (which shall be made in Pursuance to the Constitution), shall be the supreme Law of the land. Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law (subject to the Tenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment and other Constitutional Law) trumps – or "preempts" – the state law, according to this theory.

This is why people still get prosecuted in California for having marijuana, because even though CA allows medical marijuana, the federal law bans it , and people are prosecuted under it. You don't see sheriffs in California telling the feds to bug off and leave the weed smokers in his county alone-because he can't do that.

[pcosmar]

according to this theory.

This is why people still get prosecuted in California for having marijuana, because even though CA allows medical marijuana, the federal law bans it , and people are prosecuted under it. You don't see sheriffs in California telling the feds to bug off and leave the weed smokers in his county alone-because he can't do that.

The wiki is far form authoritative.

But as I read the Constitution, the Federal Government is expressly forbidden from Law enforcement , except very specifically treason and Counterfeiting.

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. Law enforcement was to be left to local authorities, with the Supreme Court being that final Authority on Constitutional and Legal questions.

[Rael]

The wiki is far form authoritative.

But as I read the Constitution, the Federal Government is expressly forbidden from Law enforcement , except very specifically treason and Counterfeiting.

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. Law enforcement was to be left to local authorities, with the Supreme Court being that final Authority on Constitutional and Legal questions.

Your right. And also wrong.

Your looking at it from the way the constitution SHOULD be interpreted. The Supreme Court has pretty much shredded this to hell with their interpretation of the commerce clause.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I would love to get to the heart of the matter also.
I snipped out some of your quote. This is what struck me.

Would you mind posting those "absolute enumerated powers" for us.
I am especially concerned with the Law Enforcement powers, since that is the subject at hand.
Thanks.

I did not say "absolute enumerated powers". I did say:


The constitution confers enumerated powers to the federal government and the federal governments authority with regards to those powers is absolute.

The government has the power to tax. This is clearly enumerated in the constitution and well settled in the courts(no need to distract ourselves and argue the merits of a particular tax at this juncture). The power to collect federal tax clearly lies within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

After we debate over the details of the matter regarding the fine details of due process... if a lawful federal tax is owed the federal government has a right to remedy and collect. My point is this: After due process has run it's course the sheriff has no authority to impede the federal governments authority to tax.

A sheriff however, is vital ensuring due process is observed and the means of remedy do not exceed the jurisdiction of the federal government.

So posing your question are you seeking to debate the fine details of due process and the means of remedy... or are you suggesting as the OP that a sheriff can impede the federal governments constitutional enumerated power to tax?

[pcosmar]

I did not say "absolute enumerated powers". I did say:
?

No you did not. So drop that revisionist bullshit

I copied your quote as did others.

Taxes are another issue, and another debate altogether.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No you did not. So drop that revisionist bullshit

I copied your quote as did others.

Taxes are another issue, and another debate altogether.

To respond in proper context I referred to this wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionism

I was torn between this one:
Fictional revisionism, the retelling of a story with substantial alterations in character or environment, to "revise" the view shown in the original work

and this one:
Historical revisionism, the critical re-examination of historical facts

Now what did I revise in the two posts I have prior in this thread?


Would you mind posting those "absolute enumerated powers" for us.
I have no idea what your anticipated, desired, intended, or unintended result was to this request but I am not in the habit of backing up or admitting error to an assertion I did not make. So you got the reply you got.

Now my post... especially this part...

or are you suggesting as the OP that a sheriff can impede the federal governments constitutional enumerated power to tax?

Is because of the original post

The County Sheriff has all power over all Federal agencies and can deny them access to his county, your door, bank accounts and personal property.

You just can't make an assertion like that without backing it up because as I articulated quite clearly with regards to federal tax it will not hold up....

Are we discussing something here or should I just expect any further thoughts I have to be considered bullshit?

[pcosmar]

Rael makes good sound points and gets ridiculed. It's appalling. After reading through this thread here is what I see.

Fedup: Hey I got the best idea ever.
Rael: Can you show some evidence to support your idea.
Fedup: FU, you troll, get the the hell out. Buy the book.
Rael: Ya, but what about the evidence...
Fedup: Here is an exceprt with excerpts of a ruling... now go flake off you troll...
Rael: Ya, but where does that even say local authorities have authority over the federal government.
Fedup: Can't you read?

Give me a break. Since when did we become unwilling to talk about the merits and finer points of an issue. Forgive me for not throwing all fucking caution to the wind and jumping on the bandwagon to post a rave. However I am going to address this particular post...



Well this kind of goes to the heart of the matter. Fedup would likely agree with you however the truth is somewhere in the definition of jurisdiction (which is a word I have used a lot in this forum).

The constitution confers enumerated powers to the federal government and the federal governments authority with regards to those powers is absolute. So with regards to federal taxes the feds have the authority to enforce their enumerated power regardless of what the sheriff thinks.

The states and local government also have powers enumerated in the constitution, state constitutions, and and state laws, etc. The fed does not have jurisdiction in these matters.

But to think the federal government can't exercise their absolute enumerated powers because a sheriff has authority over the fed is absurd. Neither has authority over the other. They have separate jurisdictions and separate powers.

Now I am not saying the idea of the OP is bad because it's not. Local organization has been discussed in several threads. Personally I have long held the position the enforcement comes at you from a local level most of the time (and by that infer higher levels of government usually obtain the cooperation of local law enforcement). I am certainly not opposed to sheriffs who do not wish to cooperate or would assert a watchful eye on activities of federal government to insure their enforcement remains within their lawful jurisdictions.

I do however object to beating the shit out of people who don't jump on your bandwagon because they raise good points. It is the tone in the thread I object to.

Your exact post , your quote highlighted in RED.

Now to the point.
Just because the Federal Government has usurped powers NOT granted By the Constitution does not make them right.
Just because it has been accepted by most for many years does NOT man that it is correct.
The Federal Government was NEVER Granted police power by the Constitution. And it has been checked by the Supreme Court several times.
You might look at this.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-10/03-federal-police-power.html

And since most of these deal with the Commerce Clause, ( the catch all for Federal Abuse) you might look at a more recent ruling.
United States v Lopez
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/data/us/000/u10287.html

To uphold the Government's contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.

I am still waiting for the specific enumerated power that grants the Federal Government Police Power.
There is none.

[Philmanoman]

I didnt read everything but remember something about elected sheriffs...maybe the key is elected...is it possible they have the power but they dont envoke it...elected sheriffs are public servants...or are supposed to be...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ok, in light of the highlighted section I can understand now where you are coming from. I did in fact use that verbiage but obviously misinterpreted your reply because I did not fully review my original post. My bad. Now we are communicating. Let us move forward.


Your exact post , your quote highlighted in RED.

Now to the point.
Just because the Federal Government has usurped powers NOT granted By the Constitution does not make them right.
Just because it has been accepted by most for many years does NOT man that it is correct.
The Federal Government was NEVER Granted police power by the Constitution. And it has been checked by the Supreme Court several times.
You might look at this.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-10/03-federal-police-power.html

And since most of these deal with the Commerce Clause, ( the catch all for Federal Abuse) you might look at a more recent ruling.
United States v Lopez
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/data/us/000/u10287.html


I am still waiting for the specific enumerated power that grants the Federal Government Police Power.
There is none.

Regarding:

But to think the federal government can't exercise their absolute enumerated powers

I was primarily thinking of:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Clearly the constitution enumerates certain absolute powers and even some means to enforce them. Let's speculate for a moment that congress enacted a direct apportioned tax on all real property. Are you suggesting that a sheriff (again assuming due process has been observed) has constitutional grounds to stop the federal government from taking your property if you do not pay that tax?

I do not disagree with your assertion the federal government has usurped unconstitutional police powers via the commerce clause. But that was never my assertion. Your contention I am asserting the fed has general police powers contradicts what followed in my post:

But to think the federal government can't exercise their absolute enumerated powers because a sheriff has authority over the fed is absurd. Neither has authority over the other. They have separate jurisdictions and separate powers.

I only jumped in this thread because the OP's contention was that a sheriff had a silver bullet to completely keep the fed out of their county. Upon reviewing the thread I felt Rael brought up good points because a sheriff does not have authority over the fed. A sheriff has his own authority which is not over but distinct from federal power and jurisdiction. I only responded to the tax post to illustrate this truth. Clearly the federal government has the power to collect tax.

I do not feel I am bringing something new to the thread but supporting a perspective that was already brought up and ridiculed.

I would like to know your position on with regards to the OP's assertion. Does the federal government have the power to collect tax? Does a sheriff have the constitutional authority over the federal government to impede that power? You have not stated your position. I stated I agree with your perspective on the commerce clause with regards to usurping police powers, but is there something we disagree on here?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I used crappy double negative verbiage here


I do not disagree with your assertion the federal government has usurped unconstitutional police powers via the commerce clause.

Just to be clear:


I AGREE with your assertion the federal government has usurped unconstitutional police powers via the commerce clause.

[pcosmar]

I would like to know your position on with regards to the OP's assertion. Does the federal government have the power to collect tax? Does a sheriff have the constitutional authority over the federal government to impede that power? You have not stated your position. I stated I agree with your perspective on the commerce clause with regards to usurping police powers, but is there something we disagree on here?

Yes the federal Government has the power to levy tax. However I find nowhere that they are given ANY police powers.
On the question of taxes, there is some valid difference of opinion as to whether "Income"taxes are even legal.
They have become "accepted" and are enforced at the barrel of a gun. But as to their legitimacy, I have questions.
And yes, as I understand the intent of the Founders the local ELECTED authorities have have dominance over any appointed bureaucrats or hired guns.
There are several warnings in their writings to this effect.

[Danke]

Clearly the constitution enumerates certain absolute powers and even some means to enforce them. Let's speculate for a moment that congress enacted a direct apportioned tax on all real property. Are you suggesting that a sheriff (again assuming due process has been observed) has constitutional grounds to stop the federal government from taking your property if you do not pay that tax?



The Federal Government does not have that power. They can not enacted a direct apportioned tax on all real property.

[Bryan]

Thanks to fedup100, Sheriff Mack has now signed up for the forum and will be answering questions. I briefly spoke to him on the phone this morning.

Please treat our honored guest with the highest regard and keep the discourse at the highest level possible.

FYI, here is his account:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=22769

[Danke]

Thanks to fedup100, Sheriff Mack has now signed up for the forum and will be answering questions. I briefly spoke to him on the phone this morning.

Please treat our honored guest with the highest regard and keep the discourse at the highest level possible.

FYI, here is his account:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=22769

Awesome! Nice job guys.

[Sandra]

Thanks to fedup100, Sheriff Mack has now signed up for the forum and will be answering questions. I briefly spoke to him on the phone this morning.

Please treat our honored guest with the highest regard and keep the discourse at the highest level possible.

FYI, here is his account:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=22769

Great deal!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes the federal Government has the power to levy tax. However I find nowhere that they are given ANY police powers.
On the question of taxes, there is some valid difference of opinion as to whether "Income"taxes are even legal.
They have become "accepted" and are enforced at the barrel of a gun. But as to their legitimacy, I have questions.
And yes, as I understand the intent of the Founders the local ELECTED authorities have have dominance over any appointed bureaucrats or hired guns.
There are several warnings in their writings to this effect.

I am not debating the validity of a particular tax in this thread. Those discussions are already in other threads. The constitution has given the government the power to tax with a couple restraints. The founders certainly knew the federal government might have cause to raise money taxing the people directly. A good example of this might be to defend our nation in a time of war.

The rule of law does not work on the principle that if you can afford to pay you pay and if you can't you can't. Law works on the principle that all owe $x.xx amount regardless of ability to pay and if you do not pay you have broken the law.

In order to enforce the power to levy a tax the constitution also gives the power to collect tax. Obviously the founders knew the power to levy tax is not a power without the means to collect it. Surely this was evident under the articles of confederation.

I do not see the power to collect federal taxes as a police power. It is separate power that has been given exclusively to the federal government under the constitution. This does not mean the federal government has any means available though to collect. Due process must be observed.

But at the end of the day under a system of law. If a lawful tax has been lawfully levied and that tax has not been paid according the manner prescribed in law.... the law has been broken and there is a consequence.

I noticed in your reply you acknowledge congress has the power to levy but what is that power without the means to collect? I did not make that power up.. its right there in the constitution.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Thanks to fedup100, Sheriff Mack has now signed up for the forum and will be answering questions. I briefly spoke to him on the phone this morning.

Please treat our honored guest with the highest regard and keep the discourse at the highest level possible.

FYI, here is his account:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=22769

I admire fedup100's effort and Sheriff Mack's willingness to participate in this forum. It is always a special pleasure to discuss liberty with those who believe in and assert it even if we do not always initially agree on the fine details.

[fedup100]

I am not debating the validity of a particular tax in this thread. Those discussions are already in other threads. The constitution has given the government the power to tax with a couple restraints. The founders certainly knew the federal government might have cause to raise money taxing the people directly. A good example of this might be to defend our nation in a time of war.

The rule of law does not work on the principle that if you can afford to pay you pay and if you can't you can't. Law works on the principle that all owe $x.xx amount regardless of ability to pay and if you do not pay you have broken the law.

In order to enforce the power to levy a tax the constitution also gives the power to collect tax. Obviously the founders knew the power to levy tax is not a power without the means to collect it. Surely this was evident under the articles of confederation.

I do not see the power to collect federal taxes as a police power. It is separate power that has been given exclusively to the federal government under the constitution. This does not mean the federal government has any means available though to collect. Due process must be observed.

But at the end of the day under a system of law. If a lawful tax has been lawfully levied and that tax has not been paid according the manner prescribed in law.... the law has been broken and there is a consequence.

I noticed in your reply you acknowledge congress has the power to levy but what is that power without the means to collect? I did not make that power up.. its right there in the constitution.

I think most of us can agree that the us government is not known for being particularly honest with we the people. For that reason we must study to learn the truth and have an open mind for the fraud confusion and abuse of we the citizen is staggering at this late date.

The argument in the last few posts regard the feds right or jurisdiction to either tax or enter a SOVEREIGN STATE to apply force to collect taxes........

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/FederalZone.htm

The federal zone, or federal “United States**”, is the area of land over which the Congress exercises an unrestricted, exclusive legislative jurisdiction. The Congress, however, does not have unrestricted, exclusive legislative jurisdiction over any of the 50 sovereign states. It is bound by the chains of the Constitution.

The areas listed above where there are no Constitutional rights are the only areas where direct income taxes under Subtitle A can be applied to individuals without apportionment and without violating (clauses 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of) the Constitution. Everyplace else, it isn’t a tax, but a donation.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/usax3.html

. The District of Columbia is a corporation which is also known as the "1 & 2 United States." It must have it's own definition for "state" since it 1 & 2 and the territorial States were not formed as Union States (3) by and under the Constitution. It is the primary entity owning Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, etc., which are federal States.

. "United States" means "federal areas" within the fifty states of the Union which are ceded to the "United States" and under the municipal authority of the Congress seated in Washington, D.C., but it does not include the entire geographical areas of the several states of the Union.

3. "United States" means the possessions of the District of Columbia which are its States - - -Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. It does not mean the 50 Union States.

4. The numbers 2 and 3 above are called "States" but are not to be confused with the states of the Union, such as Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.

Now, the Sheriff is elected by the people in a sovereign State, the federal government has NO jurisdiction.

This is why the feds could not enter New Orleans after Katrina. We must all read and learn and wake up to the con.

[Danke]

The areas listed above where there are no Constitutional rights are the only areas where direct income taxes under Subtitle A can be applied to individuals without apportionment and without violating (clauses 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of) the Constitution. Everyplace else, it isn’t a tax, but a donation.



The Federal Income tax has nothing to do with location. It is a tax on activities. It is also an indirect tax, not a direct tax.


There are provisions where if you live in a certain foreign counties that tax your income, and that the US Government has treaties. These are covered in tax treaties.

The ability to directly tax citizens that Live_Free_Or_Die brings up, does not exist.

[fedup100]

. "United States" means "federal areas" within the fifty states of the Union which are ceded to the "United States" and under the municipal authority of the Congress seated in Washington, D.C., but it does not include the entire geographical areas of the several states of the Union.

3. "United States" means the possessions of the District of Columbia which are its States - - -Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. It does not mean the 50 Union States.

4. The numbers 2 and 3 above are called "States" but are not to be confused with the states of the Union, such as Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.

The areas listed above where there are no Constitutional rights are the only areas where direct income taxes under Subtitle A can be applied to individuals without apportionment and without violating (clauses 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of) the Constitution. Everyplace else, it isn’t a tax, but a donation.

Word smithing will not dismiss the two types of states, federal or Sovereign.


THE ISSUE IS SOVEREIGNTY!

The activity you mentioned does not apply to a State citizen. Could you please include the activities that are taxable to a State citizen?

[Sandra]

. "United States" means "federal areas" within the fifty states of the Union which are ceded to the "United States" and under the municipal authority of the Congress seated in Washington, D.C., but it does not include the entire geographical areas of the several states of the Union.

3. "United States" means the possessions of the District of Columbia which are its States - - -Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. It does not mean the 50 Union States.

4. The numbers 2 and 3 above are called "States" but are not to be confused with the states of the Union, such as Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky.

The areas listed above where there are no Constitutional rights are the only areas where direct income taxes under Subtitle A can be applied to individuals without apportionment and without violating (clauses 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 of) the Constitution. Everyplace else, it isn’t a tax, but a donation.

Word smithing will not dismiss the two types of states, federal or Sovereign.


THE ISSUE IS SOVEREIGNTY!

The activity you mentioned does not apply to a State citizen. Could you please include the activities that are taxable to a State citizen?

This isn't the sheriff's call. It's a judge's, you know, the judicial branch.

[fedup100]

This isn't the sheriff's call. It's a judge's, you know, the judicial branch.

Again, you do not understand jurisdiction Sandra. The federal government has as much jurisdiction in a sovereign State as the royal mounted police in Canada do.

A federal canadian judge can rule till the horizon splits, but he nor his minons have jurisdiction in any County Sheriffs jurisdiction.

As Mack has said to me, "you can have a Sheriff who swore an oath to defend the constitution, but you can't give him guts."

Please ask him these questions yourself on his Q & A thread, he is waiting to respond.

[pcosmar]

This isn't the sheriff's call. It's a judge's, you know, the judicial branch.

I would say that it is the Local Elected Sheriffs job to protect his constituents from unreasonable (and possibly illegal) search and seizure.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The Federal Income tax has nothing to do with location. It is a tax on activities. It is also an indirect tax, not a direct tax.


There are provisions where if you live in a certain foreign counties that tax your income, and that the US Government has treaties. These are covered in tax treaties.

The ability to directly take citizens that Live_Free_Or_Die brings up, does not exist.

I am assuming you meant the word tax not take...

I just don't know how much plainer the constitution can be:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The power does exist to levy and collect direct tax so long as it is uniform throughout the United States. So if the United States government has the power to levy a direct tax provided it is uniform throughout the United States. The jurisdiction is well.... throughout the United States....

This is not a police power. It is a taxing power.

You keep bringing income tax. Feel free to respond to my questions in the last thread we were discussing it. I am still waiting. We have no common ground if you are unable to even acknowledge the government does have the power to levy and collect text which is so plainly written into the constitution. You might as well go debate with people who want the constitution to mean stuff that is not written. How can I discuss something when you do not acknowledge the words written in the dam document?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Again, you do not understand jurisdiction Sandra. The federal government has as much jurisdiction in a sovereign State as the royal mounted police in Canada do.

A federal canadian judge can rule till the horizon splits, but he nor his minons have jurisdiction in any County Sheriffs jurisdiction.

As Mack has said to me, "you can have a Sheriff who swore an oath to defend the constitution, but you can't give him guts."

Please ask him these questions yourself on his Q & A thread, he is waiting to respond.

Nor do you. A state does not have absolute sovereignty. In order to form a more perfect union some powers and sovereignties were transferred to the federal government. However the powers not enumerated are indeed retained by the states or people.

[Danke]

I am assuming you meant the word tax not take...

I just don't know how much plainer the constitution can be:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The power does exist to levy and collect direct tax so long as it is uniform throughout the United States. So if the United States government has the power to levy a direct tax provided it is uniform throughout the United States. The jurisdiction is well.... throughout the United States....

This is not a police power. It is a taxing power.

You keep bringing income tax. Feel free to respond to my questions in the last thread we were discussing it. I am still waiting. We have no common ground if you are unable to even acknowledge the government does have the power to levy and collect text which is so plainly written into the constitution. You might as well go debate with people who want the constitution to mean stuff that is not written. How can I discuss something when you do not acknowledge the words written in the dam document?

You are really confused.

The section in the Constitution you are bring up deal with indirect taxes.

Indirect: Rules of Uniformity

Direct: Rules of Apportionment

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

For instance if a state had absolute sovereignty then these sections would not be binding upon a state...

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.) (This clause in parentheses is superseded by the 13th Amendment.)

Section 3 - New States

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Because if a state had absolute sovereignty then why would they even be constrained to observe constitutional law? No they did in fact concede certain powers enumerated in the constitution to the federal government.

The only way for a state to reclaim its absolute sovereignty is to suceede. As long as a state is part of the union the federal government has jurisdiction in any state with regards to its enumerated powers.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

You are really confused.

The section in the Constitution you are bring up deal with indirect taxes.

Indirect: Rules of Uniformity

Direct: Rules of Apportionment

Please correct me then and cite the proper section of the constitution because I am citing the powers enumerated to congress.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

It does not say indirect only tax section...

[Danke]

The activity you mentioned does not apply to a State citizen. Could you please include the activities that are taxable to a State citizen?

A State citizen has stock in a federal corporation. The dividends from that stock would be considered income and taxable. As one example.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Or were you wanting to talk about this section

Section 9 - Limits on Congress?

[Sheriff Mack]

It's already been determined that this thing with the Wyoming sherriff is a hoax.


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

So you are saying that the sheriff has to let the feds do whatever they want in his county? If you are saying that you are wrong. I personally spoke with Sheriff Mattis about this case and you are correct that the court disavowed anything to do with this policy that Mattis established. It was part of the out of court settlement you mentioned, but it was in fact done and the feds obeyed it and Mattis enforced it. However, whether he did or didn't, every sheriff in this country has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and for any sheriff to allow its violation inside his county would be a violation of his oath and malfeasance. You have absolutley nothing, legal or otherwise, to back what you are saying. Your point of view is why catastrophes occurred at Waco and Ruby Ridge. The sheriffs should have remained in charge.
P.S. Please respond to my Q&A Sheriff Mack thread.

[fedup100]

^^ :d

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

This is why the feds could not enter New Orleans after Katrina. We must all read and learn and wake up to the con.

The feds wanted to bring armed military soldiers into New Orleans. They do not have the constitutional power to police on domestic soil when the country is not under invasion.

If however New Orleans was under foreign invasion I assure you they would not be seeking permission/cooperation. This is a power enumerated in the constitution.

So here we have an example of where the military could occupy New Orleans under the constitution and where it can not. In one example the federal government has jurisdiction and the other it does not.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

"They"... being the military....

[fedup100]

The feds wanted to bring armed military soldiers into New Orleans. They do not have the constitutional power to police on domestic soil when the country is not under invasion.

If however New Orleans was under foreign invasion I assure you they would not be seeking permission/cooperation. This is a power enumerated in the constitution.

So here we have an example of where the military could occupy New Orleans under the constitution and where it can not. In one example the federal government has jurisdiction and the other it does not.




Again it is a State Sovereignty issue!

[pcosmar]

I don't doubt that he (Sheriff Mack) was correct, And I am sure that this is a good idea. I had even tossed around the Idea of running in my county while campaigning for Ron Paul, but lack resources.
However , I think it may be a bit late in the game to have a substantial impact. :(

[LibertyEagle]

However , I think it may be a bit late in the game to have a substantial impact. :(

May be. But, it seems to me that whatever impact we can make is all good. Don't ya think?

[pcosmar]

May be. But, it seems to me that whatever impact we can make is all good. Don't ya think?
Point taken, I still try to stir and educate any that will listen.
Sadly most don't.

It is going to take a life changing event to stir most. At that point survival will be my goal.

[fedup100]

I don't doubt that he (Sheriff Mack) was correct, And I am sure that this is a good idea. I had even tossed around the Idea of running in my county while campaigning for Ron Paul, but lack resources.
However , I think it may be a bit late in the game to have a substantial impact. :(

So, looks like you need to reconsider and run. We need you and those like you to stand up. ::cool:

[Rael]

Sheriff Mack took time out to come here and answer your questions personally. Those who placed doubt on the original thread did not even have the courtesy to respond to Sheriff Mack for obvious reasons.


Are you referring to moi? There was no need to respond. He didn't directly contradict what I was saying from what I read, so there was nothing to debate.


Originally Posted by Live_Free_Or_Die View Post
Welcome Sheriff Mack.

My question is do you believe a sheriff can prevent the federal government from entering a county to enforce constitutionally enumerated powers granted to the federal government?



You pose a very good question. The answer is NO.

[phill4paul]

So, looks like you need to reconsider and run. We need you and those like you to stand up. ::cool:

Seriously Pcosmar. Their might be room in the county budget for a new Harley to go with your skid lid.;):D

[LibertyEagle]

Rael,

Actually, this was his entire answer.


You pose a very good question. The answer is NO. However, the feds only have three law enforcement responsibilities granted to them by art.1 section 8 of the Const. They are: felonies committed on the high seas, treason, and counterfeiting.
That's it. The sheriff could not keep the feds from pursuing those duties. But anything else and you, the feds, and the sheriff must refer to the 10th amendment, which states that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people. (Slightly paraphrased) So when the feds act outside their proscribed constitutional authority, it is the State's job to disallow such behavior. In Mack v US Scalia states: "The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion by the other." So who protects the citizen from federal incursions? State and local officials!

My book and my case get much more specific than this. I will not go in to all of it here, but suffice it to say that this case supercedes the Castaneda case and makes it very clear that the "states are not subject to federal direction."

[pcosmar]

So, looks like you need to reconsider and run. We need you and those like you to stand up. ::cool:

I have 2 major impediments,
First being Funds. I've been unemployed for 3 years, so there are no savings. I am presently heating my home with wood and that requires my presence on the farm both to cut and split fuel but also to mind the fires. Without some kind of income I am tied to my land.

the second is more difficult, Getting past the stigma of being an Ex Con. There is a good deal of Historical precedent ( Outlaws turned Lawmen) but in our present society The idea is largely rejected.
Hell I can't even get hired by Walmart to push carts.

I did give it some thought though. And I will be looking into the present Sheriff to see if he might know how to read.

[Rael]

Rael,

If you have a question for Sheriff Mack, post it; otherwise, please take your naysaying somewhere else.

Thanks.

No, I don't think I will. I responded to a comment from fedup that was clearly directed at me, in the thread it was posted in. I'm not violating any forum rules by doing so. You just don't agree with me, so you want to try to shut me up.

For someone who is supposed to be a libertarian, you act very much like a dictator, and frankly, I'm fed up with your tyrannical abuse of your power.

[pcosmar]

Seriously Pcosmar. Their might be room in the county budget for a new Harley to go with your skid lid.;):D

Not a Harley rider. Not that I wouldn't.
My old Triumph, is in the barn. Got killed by "Wilma", but I may resurrect it someday.;)

[phill4paul]

Not a Harley rider. Not that I wouldn't.
My old Triumph, is in the barn. Got killed by "Wilma", but I may resurrect it someday.;)

Nice. I had a '73 Bonneville. Many years ago and lost through stupid decisions. I still mourn. Maybe you'll get some of that stimulus money to rebuild it. Huh?

[LibertyEagle]

No, I don't think I will. I responded to a comment from fedup that was clearly directed at me, in the thread it was posted in. I'm not violating any forum rules by doing so. You just don't agree with me, so you want to try to shut me up.

For someone who is supposed to be a libertarian, you act very much like a dictator, and frankly, I'm fed up with your tyrannical abuse of your power.

First of all, Rael, I'm not a libertarian.

Second of all, what you posted by Sheriff Mack, was ONE SENTENCE out of his longer reply. By doing this, you totally misconstrued his reply. Now, one has to wonder whether this was accidental or purposeful by you.

Sheriff Mack has been over here at least three times answering questions. On some of those occasions, I have noticed YOU being active on the board. But, you did not have the balls or the courtesy to direct your questions while he was here. In each of these occurrences, I noticed you high-tailed it out of here in pretty short order. ;)

You might recall, that in the first thread on this topic, I asked you to please start another thread if you wanted to debate the merits of this project, as that particular thread was a planning thread. Now, I realize you're new around here, but that is how we have handled projects on this forum for quite some time. Albeit, most of those planning threads were during the campaign. You chose to ignore my request and when you had the opportunity to ask your questions directly to the Sheriff, you chose not to. So, Rael, for some reason, you're not interested in this project and that is fine, but that does not give you permission to go around and pollute every planning thread about this project. If you do not want to partake, stay out of the threads.

Thank you. :)

[fedup100]

I have 2 major impediments,
First being Funds. I've been unemployed for 3 years, so there are no savings. I am presently heating my home with wood and that requires my presence on the farm both to cut and split fuel but also to mind the fires. Without some kind of income I am tied to my land.

the second is more difficult, Getting past the stigma of being an Ex Con. There is a good deal of Historical precedent ( Outlaws turned Lawmen) but in our present society The idea is largely rejected.
Hell I can't even get hired by Walmart to push carts.

I did give it some thought though. And I will be looking into the present Sheriff to see if he might know how to read.

Yes, that is a stigma that will not qualify you for the Sheriff's office, but thanks for your consideration. :D

[phill4paul]

Yes, that is a stigma that will not qualify you for the Sheriff's office, but thanks for your consideration. :D

Why is this fedup100? Does being an ex-con automatically disqualify anyone from seeking an elected position?

[pcosmar]

Yes, that is a stigma that will not qualify you for the Sheriff's office, but thanks for your consideration. :D

Actually it does not disqualify me in and of itself. I can legally run for and serve in public office.
Getting past the general ignorance of voters IS the problem.

[phill4paul]

Actually it does not disqualify me in and of itself. I can legally run for and serve in public office.
Getting past the general ignorance of voters IS the problem.

Is it true that ex-cons lose their voting rights? If so then maybe that is the problem. The very people that have been through the system, done their time then have no voice in changing the system.

[pcosmar]

Is it true that ex-cons lose their voting rights? If so then maybe that is the problem. The very people that have been through the system, done their time then have no voice in changing the system.

Not exactly, Most states restore the right when you finish your sentence. every state handles it a bit differently. Some even allow it while under sentence.
I had my rights restored for the most part. I believe that all states refuse to allow you to serve on a jury. No prosecutor wants a juror that has intimate knowledge of the system.

[Sandra]

Not exactly, Most stated restore the right when you finish your sentence. every state handles it a bit differently. Some even allow it while under sentence.
I had my rights restored for the most part. I believe that all states refuse to allow you to serve on a jury. No prosecutor wants a juror that has intimate knowledge of the system.

Thanks! I've often wondered if one could vote after sentence completion.

[phill4paul]

Not exactly, Most states restore the right when you finish your sentence. every state handles it a bit differently. Some even allow it while under sentence.
I had my rights restored for the most part. I believe that all states refuse to allow you to serve on a jury. No prosecutor wants a juror that has intimate knowledge of the system.

Gotcha.;)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Do you really want to try and do something that will save your country?

I have not discounted the importance of the office of sheriff. Nor do I discount the merits of your idea.

While sheriff Mack did state he did not feel a sheriff can prevent federal government from exercising constitutionally enumerated powers there is still a big gray cloud over what the federal government considers it's enumerated constitutional powers from reinterpretations of the constitution. These assertions by the federal government can only be challenged proper by sheriff's challenging the federal government in common law courts.

What is the track record of the sheriff association. Have you read their bi-monthly publication. Do sheriff's have the legal support they will need for these challenges or would we be electing people and then hanging them out to dry to deal with it? These type of things can surely be addressed as your idea moves forward to enhance the cause.

The sheriff is important, as are many other things. However because of legal battles that must take place I would be much happier if we all rallied behind ending the fed as the top priority. Whether by redeeming federal reserve notes, creating an ebay clone based on liberty dollars or some alternate currency, active protesting, education, etc. I would be extremely happy if every Ron Paul supporter made ending the fed as their mission in life until it in fact goes away.

If we put as much creative energy, money, and support into pro-actively ending the fed as we did Ron Paul we can kill it.

[pcosmar]

I have not discounted the importance of the office of sheriff. Nor do I discount the merits of your idea.

While sheriff Mack did state he did not feel a sheriff can prevent federal government from exercising constitutionally enumerated powers there is still a big gray cloud over what the federal government considers it's enumerated constitutional powers from reinterpretations of the constitution. These assertions by the federal government can only be challenged proper by sheriff's challenging the federal government in common law courts.

What is the track record of the sheriff association. Have you read their bi-monthly publication. Do sheriff's have the legal support they will need for these challenges or would we be electing people and then hanging them out to dry to deal with it? These type of things can surely be addressed as your idea moves forward to enhance the cause.

The sheriff is important, as are many other things. However because of legal battles that must take place I would be much happier if we all rallied behind ending the fed as the top priority. Whether by redeeming federal reserve notes, creating an ebay clone based on liberty dollars or some alternate currency, active protesting, education, etc. I would be extremely happy if every Ron Paul supporter made ending the fed as their mission in life until it in fact goes away.

If we put as much creative energy, money, and support into pro-actively ending the fed as we did Ron Paul we can kill it.

Nice thought, but the Fed is not going away, much as I or anyone else would like it. It is entrenched. Until we have a complete regime change and a constitutional government.
However in local areas the Elected Sheriff with the backing of the citizens ( every Gun In The County) could stop incursions by the Fed.
This far and no farther.

[phill4paul]

Nice thought, but the Fed is not going away, much as I or anyone else would like it. It is entrenched. Until we have a complete regime change and a constitutional government.
However in local areas the Elected Sheriff with the backing of the citizens ( every Gun In The County) could stop incursions by the Fed.
This far and no farther.

Or at least not give the fed the ability to make it seem like they are a bunch of Wac(k)os.

[heavenlyboy34]

If I ever decide to run for something, I'll do some money bombs here on RPFs. ;):D I don't want to run in Phoenix, because I loathe the city. Perhaps I'll do something when I move. We need more musicians/artists like me in office! lol :o:D;)

[phill4paul]

If I ever decide to run for something, I'll do some money bombs here on RPFs. ;):D I don't want to run in Phoenix, because I loathe the city. Perhaps I'll do something when I move. We need more musicians/artists like me in office! lol :o:D;)

Better hurry while our FRNs are worth something.:p

And I actually prefer musicians/artists as a conduit for pointing out government foibles. I've seen too many actors cast as POTUS.;):D

[LibertyEagle]

I have not discounted the importance of the office of sheriff. Nor do I discount the merits of your idea.

While sheriff Mack did state he did not feel a sheriff can prevent federal government from exercising constitutionally enumerated powers there is still a big gray cloud over what the federal government considers it's enumerated constitutional powers from reinterpretations of the constitution. These assertions by the federal government can only be challenged proper by sheriff's challenging the federal government in common law courts.
Actually, that is not what he said. He said the following:


You pose a very good question. The answer is NO. However, the feds only have three law enforcement responsibilities granted to them by art.1 section 8 of the Const. They are: felonies committed on the high seas, treason, and counterfeiting.
That's it. The sheriff could not keep the feds from pursuing those duties. But anything else and you, the feds, and the sheriff must refer to the 10th amendment, which states that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people. (Slightly paraphrased) So when the feds act outside their proscribed constitutional authority, it is the State's job to disallow such behavior. In Mack v US Scalia states: "The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion by the other." So who protects the citizen from federal incursions? State and local officials!

My book and my case get much more specific than this. I will not go in to all of it here, but suffice it to say that this case supercedes the Castaneda case and makes it very clear that the "states are not subject to federal direction."


What is the track record of the sheriff association. Have you read their bi-monthly publication. Do sheriff's have the legal support they will need for these challenges or would we be electing people and then hanging them out to dry to deal with it? These type of things can surely be addressed as your idea moves forward to enhance the cause.
If this is a question for the Sheriff, please make it in the Q and A thread that is stickied at the top of General Politics.


The sheriff is important, as are many other things. However because of legal battles that must take place I would be much happier if we all rallied behind ending the fed as the top priority. Whether by redeeming federal reserve notes, creating an ebay clone based on liberty dollars or some alternate currency, active protesting, education, etc. I would be extremely happy if every Ron Paul supporter made ending the fed as their mission in life until it in fact goes away.

If we put as much creative energy, money, and support into pro-actively ending the fed as we did Ron Paul we can kill it.
There is no reason why we can't have one than more initiative going. But, please don't try to squash this particular project in an effort to elevate your own.

Thanks.

[phill4paul]

Yes LE you are correct in your Sheriff Mack quote. However, I think what Live Free or Die (and I may be wrong) is referring to is the fact that Sheriff Mack filed a lawsuit against the fed regarding the Brady Bill. I think that he is wondering is what the sheriffs associations, etc. would be able to accomplish on a national level as opposed to devoting our time to "larger" issues like the FED.

A valid question in my opinion.

Again, I may be wrong and I apologize to Live Free or Die if I have mispoken your intentions.

[Rael]

LE I asked that question earlier. Sheriff Macks response:

"No law supercedes the Bill of Rights and no officer is superior to the sheriff in his jurisdiction. No, not even the POTUS.":)

That might be correct from a constitutional standpoint, but in reality this is not the case. Constitutionality is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Of course the Supreme Court is usually wrong. But that's how it is. The SC has not issued any rulings that support this position. The federal government can't make a sheriff enforce their rules, but they can do pretty much whatever else they damn well please in the sheriffs county because of the SC's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes LE you are correct in your Sheriff Mack quote. However, I think what Live Free or Die (and I may be wrong) is referring to is the fact that Sheriff Mack filed a lawsuit against the fed regarding the Brady Bill. I think that he is wondering is what the sheriffs associations, etc. would be able to accomplish on a national level as opposed to devoting our time to "larger" issues like the FED.

A valid question in my opinion.

Again, I may be wrong and I apologize to Live Free or Die if I have mispoken your intentions.

It's about taking back your country from the local level on up. Our government was established such that the states had way more power than the federal government. That is fact. But instead of concentrating attention on where we can have the most impact for our liberty, most Americans today concentrate on solely the federal government.

That said, each person will have to make this decision for themselves and there is nothing to say that we cannot have more than one initiative going on.

These threads by Fedup are for the sheriffs project. If Live Free or Die wants to start one of his/her own threads to promote his project about the federal reserve, he/she is free to do so. In my opinion, both projects have merit.

[fedup100]

That might be correct from a constitutional standpoint, but in reality this is not the case. Constitutionality is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Of course the Supreme Court is usually wrong. But that's how it is. The SC has not issued any rulings that support this position. The federal government can't make a sheriff enforce their rules, but they can do pretty much whatever else they damn well please in the sheriffs county because of the SC's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.


Constitutionality is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.

The SC has already ruled on this issue and it is finished whether you like it or not.

"On June 27, 1997 the U S Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was indeed unconstitutional and that the states were not subject to federal direction.


The SC has not issued any rulings that support this position.

I know you can read but can you comprehend?!

This case has been hailed as the most monumental 10th Amendment ruling in U. S. history. The issue of federal authority is defined even further in this most powerful Tenth Amendment decision. The two sheriffs who brought the suit objected to being forced into federal service without compensation pursuant to some misguided provisions of the Brady Bill. The sheriffs sued the USA (Clinton adm.) and won a major landmark case in favor of States' Rights and local autonomy.

In this ruling by the Supreme Court, some amazing principles were exposed regarding the lack of power and authority the federal government actually has. In fact, this is exactly the issue addressed by the court when Justice Scalia opined for the majority stating, "...the Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discreet, enumerated ones."

Sheriff Mack has made this clear.


The federal government can't make a sheriff enforce their rules, but they can do pretty much whatever else they damn well please in the sheriffs county because of the SC's interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

No they cannot. Currently we have elected Sheriff's who cowtail to the big bad fed when the SC has ruled they do not have any jurisdiction. We can cure ignorance of the real law but we can't cure a gutless man with a star on his chest.

Why are you on this forum? Many here lately have posted nothing but tripe that supports the current unconstitutional government. Many here are communist and the worst kind of traitor. Even with the truth in front of them, they chose to lie about it and continue their goal of distort, distract, misinform.

[pcosmar]

I know you can read but can you comprehend?!

The issue of the Commerce Clause has been brought up also. This great "Catch All" has been used to justify numerous usurpation's and abuses.
However the court has ruled that it CAN NOT be used as such a blanket Authority.
Read United States v Lopez.

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the Great Depression to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
from wiki for quick reference.

Bottom line = The Fed cannot do anything it wants to.

[fedup100]

Yes LE you are correct in your Sheriff Mack quote. However, I think what Live Free or Die (and I may be wrong) is referring to is the fact that Sheriff Mack filed a lawsuit against the fed regarding the Brady Bill. I think that he is wondering is what the sheriffs associations, etc. would be able to accomplish on a national level as opposed to devoting our time to "larger" issues like the FED.

A valid question in my opinion.

Again, I may be wrong and I apologize to Live Free or Die if I have mispoken your intentions.

I am speaking here to livefreeordie.......

I see you parsing words and making suggestions that we have a NEW revised and interpreted Constitution. Please email Ron Paul with that question. I do believe he can straighten you out on the matter. The Constitution is not a living changing document, oh puke that anyone would have the guts to even repeat that Clinton garbage. What part of "do not infringe" can you re-interpret?

The Constitution has not been re-interpreted, your country has been over thrown and your neighbors have been brainwashed.

Everyone wants to end the federal reserve hereafter referred to as the fed. Well so do I. I think the fed is about to end themselves for surely the whole world has wised up as to who these thugs are. The feds by the way staged a coup last fall and Bush and the DC whores gave our country to them on a golden platter. You want to end the fed right well you will have to take down the whole federal machine now for they have imbedded themselves for safety.

What is your plan to do this. Organize a big march and rush and take it back. You know very well you can do nothing to fight this Zionist owned and control Money Changer's operation on a grand scale NOTHING! If I was wrong, it would have already been accomplished.

But oh yes there is one little thing the little people can do to hit these bastards hard and that is to deny them the people's money and possessions. These fed thugs know where the real authority is and they have made sure they hide this from we the people. They have brought in cia in every State to infiltrate and fill these Sheriff positions in order to make sure the big scam and heist continues.

You state that we should not put people into that office and then find out they can't hold off the mighty feds. Let me tell you what sir, there are a lot of brave men in each county just waiting for the chance as a posse to stand behind a real constitutional Sheriff against these demonic thugs.

I guess it might be a test at first, but I assure you it is a test the people will pass if the feds try to run rough shod over one of the good Sheriff's. The day this happens is the day we all better fall in line behind that man, for now is our chance to take her back!

Without these Sheriff's the people will continue to be ripped off and killed. I guess you choose to stand your own ground in order to protect your family when your door is kicked in and it will be, all of our doors are marked. Just remember Sheriff Mack when that day comes for you. While you stare into the face of tyranny, look off to the side and notice your ill informed traitor Sheriff sitting in his squad car clapping as the fed team invades your castle with his blessings.

[Sandra]

Why are you on this forum? Many here lately have posted nothing but tripe that supports the current unconstitutional government. Many here are communist and the worst kind of traitor. Even with the truth in front of them, they chose to lie about it and continue their goal of distort, distract, misinform.

These kind are traitors to this forum, their own country and worst of all their own family. You obviously find yourself in good company.

Perhaps YOU should read the forum rules. You are doing a horrible disservice to Sherrif Mack when you behave this way and are crushing the project you are trying to rally others to join..

[fedup100]

Perhaps YOU should read the forum rules. You are doing a horrible disservice to Sherrif Mack when you behave this way and are crushing the project you are trying to rally others to join..

I think He will forgive me. :o

[Sandra]

I think He will forgive me. :o

I don't think he could afford to. Time is of the essence and your proving to be caustic. In managing projects these two elements can never mix.

[Truth Warrior]

"The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state." -- Ron Paul

[pcosmar]

Why are you on this forum? Many here lately have posted nothing but tripe that supports the current unconstitutional government. Many here are communist and the worst kind of traitor. Even with the truth in front of them, they chose to lie about it and continue their goal of distort, distract, misinform.

These kind are traitors to this forum, their own country and worst of all their own family.

This is a question I have asked in my mind often lately.
I don't think he is out of line at all, and owes no one an apology.
There are people here pushing various Socialist, humanist, globalist propaganda.
There are many denying and belittling any that opposes the NWO.
There are many pushing and defending the GOP even though time after time the have openly proven to be an enemy of Liberty and puppets of the Globalists.

There are many here that seek only to divide and undermine any idea or project.
There are some that are out to scam and profit.

There are many that revel in their ignorance and view it as superiority.

What he said was true. Never apologize for the truth. :cool:

[RickyJ]

The sheriff isn't the final authority.

God is the final authority.

The USA is a lost cause. Honestly though, it never was that great. Great in material wealth yes, but great in spirituality? I think not.

[LibertyEagle]

The sheriff isn't the final authority.

God is the final authority.

The USA is a lost cause. Honestly though, it never was that great. Great in material wealth yes, but great in spirituality? I think not.

Yeah, that's why people from all over the world have wanted to come here, since our country's founding. Because it's such a rotten place. :rolleyes:

It has never been perfect, no, but historically, we've had more liberty here than any other place in the world.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's a C4L blog about Sheriff Mack and suggestions for moving forward.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=16707

[kathy88]

Mack is coming to our area Saturday to speak. Can't wait.

[asimplegirl]

We don't have county sheriffs, so there :P

Almost all local elections in the deep south tend to only vote in dems, even though on a larger scale we are red... Its just the way it is.

I doubt anyone here would vote in someone that I would agree with. EVER. Our state voted 60 something % for McCain, for Pete's sake....everyone I talk to around here seems to dislike Ron Paul because of how Fox talked about him...I even believed them for awhile, until confronted with the facts.