Q + A with Sheriff Mack

[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.


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

[LibertyEagle]

Please do not post in it until he has time to come over here to answer questions.

Thanks. :)

[Sheriff Mack]

Good afternoon. I am Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret) and it is my pleasure to address you. First let me say that I have met Ron Paul a few times and we have done the same radio shows a time or two. But that was some time ago. I campaigned for him and had his literature on my desk at work. All my family voted for him. I honestly do not remember disagreeing with any of his views or platform.

I ran for U S Senate against Jon Kyl in 2006 and I had basically the same platform as Ron Paul; Bring the troops home, diminish government spending, abolish the IRS and the federal income tax and replace them with NOTHING, no gun control and repeal those laws contrary to the second amendment, end the "War on Drugs," stop the welfare state, abolish the dept. of education, downsize govt., oppose national healthcare, and follow the Constitution as intended by the Founders, stop all federal funding of all abortions and arrest anyone involved in partial birth abortions. (I would prefer not debating any of these topics at this time though.)

I am a religious man and have a strong belief in family. I believe in one God and believe He should be worshipped and that the most important thing we can do in this life is to be fair and honest with all God's children. I also believe that liberty is a gift of our Creator and that it is our responsibility and duty to protect and uphold such liberty for ourselves and future generations.

I was sickened and discouraged about the last national election. By nature I am an optimistic person, but I could not see anything positive about the choices for President. So I decided to write a new book entitled THE COUNTY SHERIFF, AMERICA'S LAST HOPE. Quite frankly, it is exactly how I feel. I see no other hope for us if we are truly to have our freedoms restored or protected; it must be at the local level and it must be by local officials who keep their oaths to uphold, defend, and obey the U S Constitution.

The most important of these local officials being the sheriff. He has the authority, the power, and the sworn duty to protect us from al enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I spent 11 years with Provo Police in Utah and then moved home in 1988 and ran for Graham County sheriff in Az. I was re-elected in 1992. In 1994 I was the first sheriff in the country to sue (the Clinton adm.) to stop the incursions associated with the Brady Bill. It forced the sheriff to participate in a federal gun control scheme. I refused. Later 6 other sheriffs from across the country joined the lawsuit and sheriff Printz and I ended up at the Supreme Court together on December 4, 1996. 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.

This case has been hailed as the most monumental 10th Amendment ruling in U. S. history, but it has been hidden away for some reason. It is a large part of my new book as it sheds light on the issue of state sovereignty and local autonomy.

My favorite quote from the ruling (penned by Justice Scalia) is, "But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." I believe this and will continue to fight for God-given American liberty. I will stand hand in hand with anyone else who wishes to do likewise.

A great deal has been recorded about me on the internet. You may google me if you wish. Some of it true, some of it is not

[fedup100]

Sheriff Mack is currently tied up with a radio interview. Please feel free to post your questions for him, he should be available in the next hour or so to respond.

The time now is 2:26 PM Pacific

[Sheriff Mack]

Ok, Sheriff Mack is back!

[pcosmar]

Hi, and Welcome.
I have no question, but am interested in your book from what I have heard of it here.
I am also curious as to the questions that may be posed.
There are apparently some who believe that the federal Government has full authority for law enforcement in any state or county.
I will be interested to see your answers.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[fedup100]

Hi, and Welcome.
I have no question, but am interested in your book from what I have heard of it here.
I am also curious as to the questions that may be posed.
There are apparently some who believe that the federal Government has full authority for law enforcement in any state or county.
I will be interested to see your answers.

Mack is writing his response's, hang on!

[fedup100]

Sheriff Mack, Rael has posted this response regarding the Sheriff's powers and whether the people on this forum should get involved in trying to educate our county Sheriffs.

Could you please respond to Rael on my behalf?

Rael said:


"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."

[Sheriff Mack]

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?

Clearly the case you mentioned runs afoul with the second amendment and the right to bear arms as the federal government was seeking to impose mandatory enforcement of unconstitutional law upon local law enforcement. The courts decision upheld your assertion and rightfully so.

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."

[Sheriff Mack]

Sheriff Mack, Rael has posted this response regarding the Sheriff's powers and whether the people on this forum should get involved in trying to educate our county Sheriffs.

Could you please respond to Rael on my behalf?

Rael said:


Yes, this is easy, but it takes courage to stand for the truth. The sheriff is the only elected law authority in his county. He is not a bureaucrat and does not report to one. He answers directly to the power source, the people. He is their protector and servant. He protects their lives and property and keeps the peace. He has this responsibility regardless of where the threat comes from, be it from street gangs or the IRS, it is the same. You or Rael can google crimes committed by the IRS. How could any sheriff allow such criminals unfettered access to his citizens? It's time we stopped such ridiculous and inexcusable behavior from the federal government!

[LibertyEagle]

Sheriff Mack, thank you so much for taking the time to come over here and answer questions. My question has to do with whether sheriffs have this authority in all states, or whether some states are different.

[Sheriff Mack]

Sheriff Mack, thank you so much for taking the time to come over here and answer questions. My question has to do with whether sheriffs have this authority in all states, or whether some states are different.

Connecticut did away with the office of sheriff and Hawaii has no sheriff. But any peace officer has the duty to keep his oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. This is the epitome of "Protect and Serve."
Some states are trying to reduce the power of the sheriff, but in the west it has not happened. Sheriff Arpaio has exemplified the power of the sheriff in Az.

[LibertyEagle]

I guess the hardest part is going to be finding someone to run for Sheriff that has the courage that you have shown. No easy feat. Thank you, by the way. You are the type of person that made this country great.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[ronpaulhawaii]

Sheriff Mack, thanks for coming on board, and all of your efforts through the years...

I have a couple questions:

You have a few books. As this development has arisen due to fedup100's ideas on using your work to further our common cause, I wonder which book you would recommend for a nationwide effort to connect with LE? I am specifically looking at "The Proper Role of Law Enforcement". From the summaries, it looks to me that "America's Last Hope" is more technical, whereas the former is more philosophical. Which would be better for us to introduce ourselves with?

Secondly, I am wondering if you are aware of the work of Edwin Vieira (http://edwinvieira.com/) and the Committees of Safety (http://www.committeesofsafety.org) that Walter Reddy has been setting up? Their idea is to re-invigorate state sanctioned constitutional militia and I imagine getting the sheriffs involved to be a good thing. I am curious on any thoughts you would have on that.

Thanks again.

[Sandra]

Thanks for meeting us on the forum!

I have a question about the wigged out sheriff in our parish. He has contracted services from a company that uses speed vans to ticket car owners, not the drivers. That's not the only problem, the photo flash from the van has caused accidents. He said on a local news story that he was protecting the public despite the story being generated by complaints. He has been making some very self serving decisions lately that put our parish at risk. What can be done to either get him to cease or leave office?

[fedup100]

bump

[mediahasyou]

Can a sheriff choose not to enforce local, state, or national laws?

[Sheriff Mack]

Sheriff Mack, thanks for coming on board, and all of your efforts through the years...

I have a couple questions:

You have a few books. As this development has arisen due to fedup100's ideas on using your work to further our common cause, I wonder which book you would recommend for a nationwide effort to connect with LE? I am specifically looking at "The Proper Role of Law Enforcement". From the summaries, it looks to me that "America's Last Hope" is more technical, whereas the former is more philosophical. Which would be better for us to introduce ourselves with?

Secondly, I am wondering if you are aware of the work of Edwin Vieira (http://edwinvieira.com/) and the Committees of Safety (http://www.committeesofsafety.org) that Walter Reddy has been setting up? Their idea is to re-invigorate state sanctioned constitutional militia and I imagine getting the sheriffs involved to be a good thing. I am curious on any thoughts you would have on that.

Thanks again.

Actually, The Proper Role of Law Enforcement is more philosophical than is The County Sheriff, America's Last Hope. In the Last Hope are many more references to my lawsuit and the constitution. The PRLE has my personal story of my transformation from "by-the-numbers cop" to "constitutional guard." Honestly, you need to read them both and decide for yourself which book would be the best for what you want to do. Last Hope is the sequel. It's definitely powerful.
I am familiar with Vieira. However, the Militia does not get to be a power unto itself. It is under the direction of the Governor or the Sheriff. But I totally support the idea of Militias. And yes it would be good to coordinate it with the sheriff.

[Sheriff Mack]

I will be doing a radio show in just a couple of minutes. I don't want to sound like a book salesman, but quite frankly, THE COUNTY SHERIFF, AMERICA'S LAST HOPE answers many of the questions you are posing here. I invite all to challenge the contents of the book. If I have erroneous information in the book, please let me know. If it be so, then I will remove it. If the info. is correct, then let's use it to restore our country as the Constitutional Republic she was meant to be!
www.sheriffmack.com

[Chosen]

Thanks for coming to the forum to answer questions.

My questions is in regards to duty as it applies to the rule of law. I am sure you are familiar with On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman LTC (http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html). I bring this up to focus on duty. How do you think Peace officers will react when confronted with the revolutionary behavior of citizens in open opposition to a tyrannical government? More specifically, what set of criteria do you think will effect a peace officers judgment as it relates to enforcement? Will the "sheepdog" chose to follow the rule of law or will they consider that the rule of law is a condition of orders?

It seems quite a conundrum, the "sheepdog" defending the "wolf," don't you think? Would this be an area where a Sheriff would have a greater impact to ensure Constitutional rights are upheld, even if in concordant opposition to Federal needs?

Thanks ahead of time for your answer.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to order his latest book and read it. Because it sounds like it is the one that we need to try to get to as many sheriffs around the country that we can.

www.sheriffmack.com

[Danke]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to order his latest book and read it. Because it sounds like it is the one that we need to try to get to as many sheriffs around the country that we can.

www.sheriffmack.com

Already order both his LE books.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[fedup100]

I too will be ordering the book. I am so grateful that Sheriff Mack has joined us and and has answered our most pressing questions.

Sometimes the truth is simple and hidden in plain sight. This is one of those examples.

I have thought for years that we, the people could drastically change the course we are on if we could just understand this one principle regarding our protector, our Sheriff's.

I hope you guys will help us put together a "plan of action" to put Sheriff Mack's principles in action. Educating the current Sheriff's but more importantly organizing and running true constitutional candidates for that office.

Sheriff Mack has said we if we can get just 10% of the 3000 Sheriff offices filled with real constitutional men that do have guts, the tide will turn quickly and liberty and freedom will return to America.

[Sheriff Mack]

Thanks for meeting us on the forum!

I have a question about the wigged out sheriff in our parish. He has contracted services from a company that uses speed vans to ticket car owners, not the drivers. That's not the only problem, the photo flash from the van has caused accidents. He said on a local news story that he was protecting the public despite the story being generated by complaints. He has been making some very self serving decisions lately that put our parish at risk. What can be done to either get him to cease or leave office?

You'll have to consider a petition drive to put political heat on him (numbers are the only thing that scares a true politician) or make use of whatever laws are available in your state to remove officials,. i.e. recall drive or new election.
It might be more feasible to just wait and run a solid constitutional candidate
against him in the next election. I have fought photo radar all over the country
and here in Az. The Pinal County Sheriff here has opposed it and got rid of it in his county and there's a real push now to get rid of it state-wide.
RM

[Sandra]

Thank you for your answer. It will be some time before the next election but we better get started.

[Sheriff Mack]

Bottom line: The Constitution is only as strong as the hands that have promised to preserve it. If freedom is to be restored to America it will take some good 'ol fashioned guts from local officials who have had enough. There are always going to be naysayers and government loyalists who believe in the king. Patrick Henry addressed such people in his famous "give me liberty or give me death" speech, and Samuel Adams did the same when he scolded such people with his "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you" speech. But John Adams said it all with just six words when he was asked if the colonies should even think about taking on the enormous armies of the British crown. "Could we ever dream of victory from such a powerful enemy?" John Adams was asked. His reply, "Duty is ours, results are God's." It is the same today. Let's all do our duty and leave the rest to Him. I know of no other better place to start than with your sworn protector and servant; your county sheriff.
Sheriff Richard Mack

[Sheriff Mack]

Can a sheriff choose not to enforce local, state, or national laws?

Yes, they do it all the time. It's called "police discretion." I only wish they'd use it more often. However, the sheriff must apply his own moral agency in the executiton of the law. He must also understand that nothing supercedes the Constitution; it is the supreme law of the land. If he is forced, as I was when I sued to stop the Brady bill, to choose between keeping his oath or obeying a statute, which clearly violates the Constitution, his choice should remain clear; side with principle and freedom.
RM

[phill4paul]

Welcome to the forums Sheriff Mack:

A quick question regarding the powers of the sheriffs office.

I would guess, that since a county is larger than the cities within it that the sheriffs office powers would outweigh those of the cities police force. Meaning that a sheriff could intervene in the arrest of a civilian by the police department. Would this be correct?

Conversely, since the state is larger than the county, State troopers would have greater powers than the sheriffs office.

Is this how it works?

[reduen]

Good afternoon. I am Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret) and it is my pleasure to address you. First let me say that I have met Ron Paul a few times and we have done the same radio shows a time or two. But that was some time ago. I campaigned for him and had his literature on my desk at work. All my family voted for him. I honestly do not remember disagreeing with any of his views or platform.

I ran for U S Senate against Jon Kyl in 2006 and I had basically the same platform as Ron Paul; Bring the troops home, diminish government spending, abolish the IRS and the federal income tax and replace them with NOTHING, no gun control and repeal those laws contrary to the second amendment, end the "War on Drugs," stop the welfare state, abolish the dept. of education, downsize govt., oppose national healthcare, and follow the Constitution as intended by the Founders, stop all federal funding of all abortions and arrest anyone involved in partial birth abortions. (I would prefer not debating any of these topics at this time though.)

I am a religious man and have a strong belief in family. I believe in one God and believe He should be worshipped and that the most important thing we can do in this life is to be fair and honest with all God's children. I also believe that liberty is a gift of our Creator and that it is our responsibility and duty to protect and uphold such liberty for ourselves and future generations.

I was sickened and discouraged about the last national election. By nature I am an optimistic person, but I could not see anything positive about the choices for President. So I decided to write a new book entitled THE COUNTY SHERIFF, AMERICA'S LAST HOPE. Quite frankly, it is exactly how I feel. I see no other hope for us if we are truly to have our freedoms restored or protected; it must be at the local level and it must be by local officials who keep their oaths to uphold, defend, and obey the U S Constitution.

The most important of these local officials being the sheriff. He has the authority, the power, and the sworn duty to protect us from al enemies, both foreign and domestic.

I spent 11 years with Provo Police in Utah and then moved home in 1988 and ran for Graham County sheriff in Az. I was re-elected in 1992. In 1994 I was the first sheriff in the country to sue (the Clinton adm.) to stop the incursions associated with the Brady Bill. It forced the sheriff to participate in a federal gun control scheme. I refused. Later 6 other sheriffs from across the country joined the lawsuit and sheriff Printz and I ended up at the Supreme Court together on December 4, 1996. 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.

This case has been hailed as the most monumental 10th Amendment ruling in U. S. history, but it has been hidden away for some reason. It is a large part of my new book as it sheds light on the issue of state sovereignty and local autonomy.

My favorite quote from the ruling (penned by Justice Scalia) is, "But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." I believe this and will continue to fight for God-given American liberty. I will stand hand in hand with anyone else who wishes to do likewise.

A great deal has been recorded about me on the internet. You may google me if you wish. Some of it true, some of it is not


Thank you Sheriff Mack for all that you are doing to try and help our country! I for one appreciate you very much...

God Bless,

Chris R.

[Sheriff Mack]

We agree on an important point. You already anticipated my follow-up question and cited powers enumerated in the constitution. I am certain you have seen my assertions in the other thread where I believe the constitution has given the federal government the power to levy and collect taxes.

I do not consider this power a policing power but a taxing a power also enumerated in section 8 of the constitution that a sheriff must yield to if the federal government seeks to collect a tax. With regards to taxation I do not wish to debate whether or not any of our existing taxes are constitutional, I will leave that to others. I do wish to expand upon the powers or lack of with regards to federal taxation.

I assert based on section 8 of the constitution that congress has the power to levy and collect tax:


I also assert under this power congress can levy a direct tax subject to apportionment as outlined in section 9 of the constitution:


I am going to omit referring to the 16th amendment as I do not consider it relevant to my follow-up question.

My first follow-up question is do you agree with these two assertions?

My second follow-up question involves a hypothetical scenario.
If congress levied a lawful direct apportioned tax upon the people throughout the united states in proportion to the census and someone in your county did not pay the tax and the federal government obtained a court ruling in their favor with a court order to seize for liquidation the persons property who failed to pay the tax... do you feel you have any constitutional grounds not to comply with the court order?

Under this hypothetical scenario I do not feel a sheriff does. However I do believe a sheriff might be able to object to how the federal government goes about building its case and collecting evidence to insure it does not violate the constitutional rights of any person. Any additional comments or thoughts on this are welcome and appreciated as you would certainly have insights and perspectives working in the law enforcement field that I do not have.

If the court order was from a judge in my jurisdiction. But sheriffs are not usually part of tax courts. The tax you mentioned seems too hypothetical.

What I do know is that the IRS conducts itself in unlawful manners and victims of IRS abuse in the sheriff's county would qualify for his protection. To do otherwise would be throwing his constituents to the wolves.
RM

[Sheriff Mack]

Welcome to the forums Sheriff Mack:

A quick question regarding the powers of the sheriffs office.

I would guess, that since a county is larger than the cities within it that the sheriffs office powers would outweigh those of the cities police force. Meaning that a sheriff could intervene in the arrest of a civilian by the police department. Would this be correct?

Conversely, since the state is larger than the county, State troopers would have greater powers than the sheriffs office.

Is this how it works?

No, this is not how it works. Most Highway Patrols were first started as security for Governors. They then evolved to patrol state highways. "Might makes right" does not apply. In other words, whoever has the most land or the most officers is not who necessarily the one who has the most authority. The sheriff has the ultimate say in his county, period. It does not matter how small or big the county is that he presides over. He is the elected protector. No law supercedes the Bill of Rights and no officer is superior to the sheriff in his jurisdiction. No, not even the POTUS.

[phill4paul]

No, this is not how it works. Most Highway Patrols were first started as security for Governors. They then evolved to patrol state highways. "Might makes right" does not apply. In other words, whoever has the most land or the most officers is not who necessarily the one who has the most authority. The sheriff has the ultimate say in his county, period. It does not matter how small or big the county is that he presides over. He is the elected protector. No law supercedes the Bill of Rights and no officer is superior to the sheriff in his jurisdiction. No, not even the POTUS.


Quite an eye opener. It seems that a sheriff has great powers and, with that, a greater responsibility for the protection of the citizens within his jurisdiction. I'll check out your book(s) and this thread. It will be interesting to see what the local sheriff has to say on these matters once I have my facts straight. Thank you.

[TigerPrwn]

Hello Sheriff Mack, and God Bless :)
I thought I would drop in and let you know that I pre-ordered several copies of County Sheriff America's Last Hope. I along with some friends plan to hand them out to several of the County Sheriff's in my state. We will of course read the book first, but do you have any suggestions about breaking the ice when approaching them?
I would like to approach them with information that will not only catch their curiosity, and motivate them to read your book, but also let them know that they can become empowered through the cause of liberty, and we will stand behind them if they chose to protect our God given rights.

I heard you on the Alex Jones show, and ordered several copies right away. I really enjoyed hearing what you had to say. Thank you so much.

[reduen]

Sheriff Mack,

I know this may sound strange initially but I have heard that the only person who can arrest a County Sheriff is the County Coroner...

Is there any truth to this? (Sorry if I have already missed this info somewhere..)

[Sheriff Mack]

Sheriff Mack,

I know this may sound strange initially but I have heard that the only person who can arrest a County Sheriff is the County Coroner...

Is there any truth to this? (Sorry if I have already missed this info somewhere..)

Yes, in most states that have a coroner or a constable, it does say that the sheriff can only be arrested by them. I haven't looked at all states, but it does say it in Az., but most counties here do not have coroners or constables. I am not sure what it all means.

[Sandra]

Sheriff Mack,

I know this may sound strange initially but I have heard that the only person who can arrest a County Sheriff is the County Coroner...

Is there any truth to this? (Sorry if I have already missed this info somewhere..)


Would that apply with crimes such as if the sheriff committed murder? I would think anyone could make an arrest.

[Sheriff Mack]

Would that apply with crimes such as if the sheriff committed murder? I would think anyone could make an arrest.

I would have to agree with you on that. That's why I don't quite comprehend
such statutes about the constable being the only one.
RM

[Danke]

I would have to agree with you on that. That's why I don't quite comprehend
such statutes about the constable being the only one.
RM

Anyone can always make a "citizens" arrest, right?

Although I could see some resistance on the part of the LEO.

[phill4paul]

Another quick question.

My question has to do with the sheriffs ability to deputize civilians. I am referring to the old west shows, were in the face of lawlessness or "bad guys" a sheriff would deputize the citizenry thus giving them a measure of legitimacy in the eyes of the law.

Does this power still reside with the sheriff? I believe that it has already been stated that a local militia should work closely with the sheriffs office. In the event that the local sheriffs office should need additional support, should a sheriff consider this option?

[LibertyEagle]

Who has authority over the other between a police chief and a sheriff?

[phill4paul]

Who has authority over the other between a police chief and a sheriff?

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.":)

[LibertyEagle]

Thanks Phil. :)

[phill4paul]

Thanks Phil. :)

np. ;)

[hillbilly123069]

With the "training" going on in New Orleans,and the rumors of the FEMA camps ready to fill up,what is my legal,Constitutional course of action if I'm aware that my door is about to be kicked in with the intent to relocate me to 1 of these camps?I know my options severly diminish once I'm at my new home.

[phill4paul]

With the "training" going on in New Orleans,and the rumors of the FEMA camps ready to fill up,what is my legal,Constitutional course of action if I'm aware that my door is about to be kicked in with the intent to relocate me to 1 of these camps?I know my options severly diminish once I'm at my new home.

I think you know the answer to that.;)

[hillbilly123069]

I know the immediate situation actions to take,but if I did survive that,then the law everywhere would be after me.Is the best option to disappear into the woods or is their another option?Someone to contact or someplace to go.
Ther are a whole lot of "if's" I cannot believe the fighting force of the military would have anything to do with these sort of actions to us,but just in case.

[phill4paul]

I know the immediate situation actions to take,but then the law everywhere would be after me.Is the best option to disappear into the woods or is their another option?Someone to contact or someplace to go.

If,and let me clarify here, you are faced with the prospect of the federal government "removing" you to a FEMA camp then you have two options. Reject them or submit. Options depend on what you have prepared for ahead of time.

[LibertyEagle]

Folks, please remember that this particular thread is for questions for Sheriff Mack.

Thanks.
:)

[phill4paul]

Folks, please remember that this particular thread is for questions for Sheriff Mack.

Thanks.
:)

Thanks we do tend to go off on tangents don't we. That's the Royal "we" meaning "I"
Sorry.:o

[nickcoons]

I ran for U S Senate against Jon Kyl in 2006 and I had basically the same platform as Ron Paul

I remember this.. I voted for you. I particularly like the comments you made about you opponents at one of your televised debates. You said that they two of them have spent $10m and $11m on their campaigns, and you've only spent $35,000, which is a good indication of how you would spend our money. A typical snarky libertarian response (which of course I mean in a good way).

[Sheriff Mack]

Another quick question.

My question has to do with the sheriffs ability to deputize civilians. I am referring to the old west shows, were in the face of lawlessness or "bad guys" a sheriff would deputize the citizenry thus giving them a measure of legitimacy in the eyes of the law.

Does this power still reside with the sheriff? I believe that it has already been stated that a local militia should work closely with the sheriffs office. In the event that the local sheriffs office should need additional support, should a sheriff consider this option?

Yes, the sheriff has this authority. It is listed in Arizona law that the sheriff can call
out every able bodied citizen in preserving the peace and in executing the law. I am sure other states have this as well, but I haven't personally researched it.
RM

[Sheriff Mack]

I remember this.. I voted for you. I particularly like the comments you made about you opponents at one of your televised debates. You said that they two of them have spent $10m and $11m on their campaigns, and you've only spent $35,000, which is a good indication of how you would spend our money. A typical snarky libertarian response (which of course I mean in a good way).

Thanks for your vote. It was actually $3,500.

[american.swan]

A home owner, who is about to get raided by the FBI or some other federal agency like the ATF, doesn't have a whole lot of options; we know.

I am wondering does the sheriff get notifed in advance of such federal raids and could the sheriff call out the ciizens to stop such a raid or arrest federal agents in his jurisdiction who "break state law or the constitution."

Thanks for coming on here and answering questions.

[reduen]

A home owner, who is about to get raided by the FBI or some other federal agency like the ATF, doesn't have a whole lot of options; we know.

I am wondering does the sheriff get notifed in advance of such federal raids and could the sheriff call out the ciizens to stop such a raid or arrest federal agents in his jurisdiction who "break state law or the constitution."

Thanks for coming on here and answering questions.

Good question here..... Thank you again Sheriff Mack for your time and efforts. :)

[Rael]

Sherrif Mack, could you please elaborate a bit on the position you are taking. There are some on this forum who believe that a sherriff can order the feds out of his county. From what I have read of your postings, I'm not sure that this is the message you are trying to get across. It is my contention that under the supreme courts current interpretation of the constitution, a sherrif cannot make the federal government do anything. I understand that state officials cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Can you please clarify your stance on this?

[Swmorgan77]

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?

Clearly the case you mentioned runs afoul with the second amendment and the right to bear arms as the federal government was seeking to impose mandatory enforcement of unconstitutional law upon local law enforcement. The courts decision upheld your assertion and rightfully so.

I think state enforcement would be sufficient given that the states have these rights enumerated as well and in many cases have stronger case-law in favor of the right to bear arms.

I would hesitate personally to accept 2nd amendment enforcement as a basis for Federal intervention even when it appeared necessary since this creates a pretext for Federal control. If the State fails to legally enforce the right, move to a state that does. States will start falling into line when the millions of gun owners in the United States start migrating to other states.

Competition is a powerful force.

[hillbilly123069]

What about my question sir?

[Kraig]

Sheriff Mack: In your career have you ever arrested or restrained someone for the use of possession of illegal drugs? If so, roughly how many?

Edit: I know you said your platform was not for the "war on drugs", I'm just curious if you held that belief when you were in the police force, and if so how you consolidated your work with your political belief.

[american.swan]

Sherrif Mack, could you please elaborate a bit on the position you are taking. There are some on this forum who believe that a sherriff can order the feds out of his county. From what I have read of your postings, I'm not sure that this is the message you are trying to get across. It is my contention that under the supreme courts current interpretation of the constitution, a sherrif cannot make the federal government do anything. I understand that state officials cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Can you please clarify your stance on this?

Good question, I would like a sheriff to be able to kick the feds out of his county but I highly doubt that is possible. If a state leaves the union, someone is going to be expected to shut down fed operations in said state. It might be the sheriff, but as of now I'm highly skeptical that a sheriff could do such a thing now. If a sheriff tried such a move, he'd be labeled a nut case, especially in a Obama loving country. It wouldn't last long. I guess my question I posted refers to specific cases. For example, in California weed is not such a bad thing, yet the feds come in anyways to enforce fed laws. In one particular instance, could a sheriff enforce the state law and protect the home owner, not some county wide action?

[Sheriff Mack]

Sherrif Mack, could you please elaborate a bit on the position you are taking. There are some on this forum who believe that a sherriff can order the feds out of his county. From what I have read of your postings, I'm not sure that this is the message you are trying to get across. It is my contention that under the supreme courts current interpretation of the constitution, a sherrif cannot make the federal government do anything. I understand that state officials cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Can you please clarify your stance on this?

The sheriff has the responsibility to stop or prevent any violation of the Constitution in his county or parish. He can do that in many ways. There is no formula for doing it and there is no statute which requires it to be done in a certain way. We seem to be hoping to find some law or litigation that spells all this out. My supreme court decision spells some of this out and my book documents this philosophy. But the exact manner in which the sheriff confronts the feds is not spelled out. Can he kick the feds out? I beleieve he has the authority and power to do so, but there are probably better ways to handle such problems. If the feds have not done anything wrong he can't just tell them to get out. However, my message should be clear; the sheriff is the supreme law enforcement officer in his county. He is the keeper of the peace and responsible to protect his citizens from all threats! There are so many things he could do prior to kicking anyone out of his jurisdiction, that I hesitate to make such a declaration here. But I do not want it misunderstood, HE IS THE SOVEREIGN COP OF THE COUNTY! I would feel so much more comfortable if we coul get together and discuss all of this in person. It would be so much more effective and beneficial to all concerned. We have so much to cover and so much to do. I will go anywhere, anytime, to do these sheriff seminars.
HAVE CONSTITUION; WILL TRAVEL!

[Chosen]

Thanks for coming to the forum to answer questions.

My questions is in regards to duty as it applies to the rule of law. I am sure you are familiar with On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman LTC (http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html). I bring this up to focus on duty. How do you think Peace officers will react when confronted with the revolutionary behavior of citizens in open opposition to a tyrannical government? More specifically, what set of criteria do you think will effect a peace officers judgment as it relates to enforcement? Will the "sheepdog" chose to follow the rule of law or will they consider that the rule of law is a condition of orders?

It seems quite a conundrum, the "sheepdog" defending the "wolf," don't you think? Would this be an area where a Sheriff would have a greater impact to ensure Constitutional rights are upheld, even if in concordant opposition to Federal needs?

Thanks ahead of time for your answer.

[Sandra]

The sheriff has the responsibility to stop or prevent any violation of the Constitution in his county or parish. He can do that in many ways. There is no formula for doing it and there is no statute which requires it to be done in a certain way. We seem to be hoping to find some law or litigation that spells all this out. My supreme court decision spells some of this out and my book documents this philosophy. But the exact manner in which the sheriff confronts the feds is not spelled out. Can he kick the feds out? I beleieve he has the authority and power to do so, but there are probably better ways to handle such problems. If the feds have not done anything wrong he can't just tell them to get out. However, my message should be clear; the sheriff is the supreme law enforcement officer in his county. He is the keeper of the peace and responsible to protect his citizens from all threats! There are so many things he could do prior to kicking anyone out of his jurisdiction, that I hesitate to make such a declaration here. But I do not want it misunderstood, HE IS THE SOVEREIGN COP OF THE COUNTY! I would feel so much more comfortable if we coul get together and discuss all of this in person. It would be so much more effective and beneficial to all concerned. We have so much to cover and so much to do. I will go anywhere, anytime, to do these sheriff seminars.
HAVE CONSTITUION; WILL TRAVEL!

Some states have legislaton reaffirming the 10th amendment. Do you see some possibility, if the bills pass, states could immediately push the Sheriff to the forefront? I don't see specific language in those bills but it does seem to "reinstate" the state's sovereign right to enforce laws. Would they shut down some federal powers at state level?

BTW: Woo Hoo on including "parish" in there.

[american.swan]

Thank you so much for your answer. I think I have been informed even without a face to face meeting.

[hillbilly123069]

The sheriff has the responsibility to stop or prevent any violation of the Constitution in his county or parish. He can do that in many ways. There is no formula for doing it and there is no statute which requires it to be done in a certain way. We seem to be hoping to find some law or litigation that spells all this out. My supreme court decision spells some of this out and my book documents this philosophy. But the exact manner in which the sheriff confronts the feds is not spelled out. Can he kick the feds out? I beleieve he has the authority and power to do so, but there are probably better ways to handle such problems. If the feds have not done anything wrong he can't just tell them to get out. However, my message should be clear; the sheriff is the supreme law enforcement officer in his county. He is the keeper of the peace and responsible to protect his citizens from all threats! There are so many things he could do prior to kicking anyone out of his jurisdiction, that I hesitate to make such a declaration here. But I do not want it misunderstood, HE IS THE SOVEREIGN COP OF THE COUNTY! I would feel so much more comfortable if we coul get together and discuss all of this in person. It would be so much more effective and beneficial to all concerned. We have so much to cover and so much to do. I will go anywhere, anytime, to do these sheriff seminars.
HAVE CONSTITUION; WILL TRAVEL!

How do I organize a seminar in central illinois?I have no law enf. experience and other than a friends brother being on the local SD,I would have to do this from scratch.

[kathy88]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to order his latest book and read it. Because it sounds like it is the one that we need to try to get to as many sheriffs around the country that we can.

www.sheriffmack.com



Done. We have a woman running for Sheriff in our county against the chief of police (20 years service in the local dept) and two other law enforcement officers. She is a true staunch Ron Pauler and has launched a SERIOUS campaign. I've only seen local paper articles for one of the other candidates. She has bumper stickers, radio and tv spots, local speaking engagements, and PURE GUTS. Her support is growing daily, and the same people handling her campaign are helping me with my quest for clerk of courts. If we both get in it will really something.

[Sheriff Mack]

Sheriff Mack: In your career have you ever arrested or restrained someone for the use of possession of illegal drugs? If so, roughly how many?

Edit: I know you said your platform was not for the "war on drugs", I'm just curious if you held that belief when you were in the police force, and if so how you consolidated your work with your political belief.

I was not born a constitutional cop. I got in to police work for the high speed chases, to make arrests, to kick in doors, and for the overall excitement of the job. I was a decent person though and even empathetic and compassionate. I just got caught up in the numbers game. However, in 20 years of service as a peace officer, I never once hit or slugged or maced or phyically attacked another human being. I subdued several and pinned a couple of guys against the wall, but I never did anything to harm another person. I could have if needed, but it just was not all that necessary. I did make drug arrests and served as an undercover narcotics agent for a year. It was horrible, but it taught me a lot. After that assignment is when I started to question what law enforcement was all about. I studied a great deal and especially the Constitution. I loved it and promised myself to never be on the wrong side again. So here I am. Today, I am totally opposed to the farce otherwise known as the drug war. I hate drug abuse, but I hate the drug war more.

[RCA]

Welcome to Liberty Forest Sheriff Mack! I just came across this discussion. Thanks for your dedication in the struggle to safe liberty in America. I've just added your books and website to the forum wiki pages for more exposure. These are the most extensive liberty-oriented book and website compilations in the world:

Books for Liberty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=129762)

Websites for Liberty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=173700)

:D

[reduen]

Ok, so I got the book and read it and I love it. It is a very short easy read. (I read it while eating lunch in about an hour.)

Having said that, I am not sure about how I feel about handing my county sheriff a book that calls the war on drugs a total farce. I am afraid that he will find you less than credible when he reads your position on this topic. I know a lot of people on here are pot heads that want drugs legalized but I am not one of them and I worry that my sheriff will think that I am after I give him that book to read.

Yes I did inhale when I was younger but I did not like the way it made me feel helpless…..

Anyone else have this concern after reading Sheriff Mack’s book?

[acptulsa]

Thank you, sir, for being here and for all you've done. God bless you.

It seems to me that the federal government is trying to affect the departmental culture of law enforcement agencies all over the nation. Has it been your experience that departments are now hiring grant writers and staffs charged with keeping an eye on departmental compliance in order to maintain federal funding? Are there other tools besides money that Washington uses to pressure departments into compliance? Are these things mainly applied to state governments, or do they manage to press departments directly? And how diligent is the federal government about checking in with sheriffs before doing what they will?

Also, is there any way you can think of (you've met many more sheriffs than I have) to tickle the consciences of our sheriffs and entice them to do a better job of representing us rather than Washington. I know all sheriffs are different, some (like you) are ready willing and able to do the thing right, some will not listen to anything but a failure to get reelected, and the vast majority are somewhere in between. But, if it takes a certain mindset to even want the job, what is the best way you know of to approach the person who has that mindset?

Sorry to throw so many questions out there. Thanks again!

[Danke]

I know a lot of people on here are pot heads that want drugs legalized but I am not one of them...
:rolleyes:

Nice association. I suppose anyone that drinks is a drunkard.


I do not use drugs and haven't have a drink for a couple of weeks, but support letting any free man put anything in their own body of their own choosing.

[reduen]

:rolleyes:

Nice association. I suppose anyone that drinks is a drunkard.


I do not use drugs and haven't have a drink for a couple of weeks, but support letting any free man put anything in their own body of their own choosing.

"Nice association. I suppose anyone that drinks is a drunkard."

No, and just because someone posts an idiotic response does not make them an idiot... (Good thing for you huh?) :rolleyes:

The clear difference here is that one is currently legal and the other is not. So one that smokes pot is a pothead but also a criminal at the current time. (With a very few exceptions of course…)

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am not) but if someone gets drunk all the time, we call them a drunkard and if someone gets stoned all the time we call them a stoner. (If someone gets high on pot they say they are stoned.)

Again, anyone who smokes pot is a pot smoker (pot head/pothead) and a criminal…

[Danke]

"Nice association. I suppose anyone that drinks is a drunkard."

No, and just because someone posts an idiotic response does not make them an idiot... (Good thing for you huh?) :rolleyes:

The clear difference here is that one is currently legal and the other is not. So one that smokes pot is a pothead but also a criminal at the current time. (With a very few exceptions of course…)

Correct me if I am wrong (and I am not) but if someone gets drunk all the time, we call them a drunkard and if someone gets stoned all the time we call them a stoner. (If someone gets high on pot they say they are stoned.)

Again, anyone who smokes pot is a pot smoker (pot head/pothead) and a criminal…

STFU idiot.

[reduen]

STFU idiot.

Nice....:rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

Nice....:rolleyes:

It is no crime to break an unjust or immoral law.
If there is no victim there is no crime.

Our Government is presently criminal.
Who's side are you on?

[reduen]

It is no crime to break an unjust or immoral law.
If there is no victim there is no crime.

Our Government is presently criminal.
Who's side are you on?

Make no mistake, I am on your side my friend. I just do not like smoking pot myself. :)

I agree that it should be legal but it currently is not and originally it was only my intent to express my reservations about giving the Sheriffs in my area a book that takes this position is all...

I know three of the County Sheriffs in my area pretty well and I am worried that they will not accept the position that Sherriff Mack takes on this topic.

Have any of you bought your copies of this book, read them, and gave them to the County Sheriffs in your area yet? Anyone?

[pcosmar]

Make no mistake, I am on your side my friend. I just do not like smoking pot myself. :)

I agree that it should be legal but it currently is not and originally it was only my intent to express my reservations about giving the Sheriffs in my area a book that takes this position is all...

I know three of the County Sheriffs in my area pretty well and I am worried that they will not accept the position that Sherriff Mack takes on this topic.

Have any of you bought your copies of this book, read them, and gave them to the County Sheriffs in your area yet? Anyone?

You need new Sheriffs.

[mrsat_98]

THanks you for joining our forum. I have been a follower of you for several years and am unsure where I got your first writings.

So have you ever considered running for POTUS ? If so you have my vote.

[bossman068410]

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."

Ohh I could only dream that the locals could arrest the FED RESERVE on the charges of Counterfeiting.

[Sheriff Mack]

How do I organize a seminar in central illinois?I have no law enf. experience and other than a friends brother being on the local SD,I would have to do this from scratch.

You don't need any LE experience. You need a fire in your belly for liberty. Contact others of like mind, delegate assignments, and do the advertising and BAM! You got a rally in your area.

[Sheriff Mack]

Some states have legislaton reaffirming the 10th amendment. Do you see some possibility, if the bills pass, states could immediately push the Sheriff to the forefront? I don't see specific language in those bills but it does seem to "reinstate" the state's sovereign right to enforce laws. Would they shut down some federal powers at state level?

BTW: Woo Hoo on including "parish" in there. (Thank you)

These sovereignty resolutions are coming from some states that are merely exercising power they already have. It is helping to bring attention to the Tenth Amendment and the power the states possess. The sheriff, as a state officer, has the power to do his job regardless of these state resolutions. I hope the state legislatures and sheriffs will stand together on reaffirming states' rights, but the sheriff has the duty to keep his oath whether the rest of the state's politicians "get it" or not. The Constitution is what shuts down federal powers. The sheriff just makes sure it happens!

[Sheriff Mack]

Ok, so I got the book and read it and I love it. It is a very short easy read. (I read it while eating lunch in about an hour.)

Having said that, I am not sure about how I feel about handing my county sheriff a book that calls the war on drugs a total farce. I am afraid that he will find you less than credible when he reads your position on this topic. I know a lot of people on here are pot heads that want drugs legalized but I am not one of them and I worry that my sheriff will think that I am after I give him that book to read.

Yes I did inhale when I was younger but I did not like the way it made me feel helpless…..

Anyone else have this concern after reading Sheriff Mack’s book?

That part of my book is so miniscule that I would hope the rest of the book would out weigh such a small portion of the entire picture. Ron Paul and I agree on this issue and I will tell the truth whether it is popular or not. The drug war is a farce. Do you want me to say otherwise? I cannot.

[Sheriff Mack]

Ok, so I got the book and read it and I love it. It is a very short easy read. (I read it while eating lunch in about an hour.)

Having said that, I am not sure about how I feel about handing my county sheriff a book that calls the war on drugs a total farce. I am afraid that he will find you less than credible when he reads your position on this topic. I know a lot of people on here are pot heads that want drugs legalized but I am not one of them and I worry that my sheriff will think that I am after I give him that book to read.

Yes I did inhale when I was younger but I did not like the way it made me feel helpless…..

Anyone else have this concern after reading Sheriff Mack’s book?

Give it to your sheriff and then ask him if he has any concerns AFTER HE HAS READ IT. You might be surprised. But do the right thing and let him decide for himself.

[Sheriff Mack]

THanks you for joining our forum. I have been a follower of you for several years and am unsure where I got your first writings.

So have you ever considered running for POTUS ? If so you have my vote.

I would consider running as Ron Paul's VP. Of course, that would be up to him.

[Sheriff Mack]

Thank you, sir, for being here and for all you've done. God bless you.

It seems to me that the federal government is trying to affect the departmental culture of law enforcement agencies all over the nation. Has it been your experience that departments are now hiring grant writers and staffs charged with keeping an eye on departmental compliance in order to maintain federal funding? Are there other tools besides money that Washington uses to pressure departments into compliance? Are these things mainly applied to state governments, or do they manage to press departments directly? And how diligent is the federal government about checking in with sheriffs before doing what they will?

Also, is there any way you can think of (you've met many more sheriffs than I have) to tickle the consciences of our sheriffs and entice them to do a better job of representing us rather than Washington. I know all sheriffs are different, some (like you) are ready willing and able to do the thing right, some will not listen to anything but a failure to get reelected, and the vast majority are somewhere in between. But, if it takes a certain mindset to even want the job, what is the best way you know of to approach the person who has that mindset?

Sorry to throw so many questions out there. Thanks again!

The feds do NOT want to get crossways with the sheriff. Most do check with him or other local police before they do their "work." There really isn't much compliance checking within the sheriff's office, but the feds are good at handing out "candy or toys." The best way to approach the sheriff is with lots of other people doing the same thing. He cannot ignore the numbers. I will say with all my heart, that every sheriff in this country needs to read my book. He works for you. You give it to him and then check back with him later to see if he has any questions or concerns. It's a good way to start the ball rolling.

[AZ Libertarian]

Sheriff Mack,
Thank you for taking your precious time to answer questions on this forum! I campaigned/voted for you here in Arizona for Senator, and protested outside KPHO TV when you weren't allowed to participate in the debates. You would have made a GREAT Senator! Keep up the good work sir and may God Bless you for your efforts.

Ed Vallejo, Organizer
Phoenix Ron Paul MeetUp Group
http://www.meetup.com/Ron-Paul-and-his-Campaign-for-Liberty-R3VOLUTION/

I still wear my t-shirt with pride!

http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/9/4/a/8/highres_6218056.jpeg

http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/9/4/a/d/highres_6218061.jpeg

[Danke]

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.

This case has been hailed as the most monumental 10th Amendment ruling in U. S. history, but it has been hidden away for some reason. It is a large part of my new book as it sheds light on the issue of state sovereignty and local autonomy.

My favorite quote from the ruling (penned by Justice Scalia) is, "But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions." I believe this and will continue to fight for God-given American liberty.

Do you have the case number and/or where I can read the case online?

Edit: looks like I found it: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=521&page=898

And

http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./521/898/

[donnay]

Sheriff Mack,

I am wondering have you heard this story out of Schenetady, New York: Schenectady mayor considers options, martial law over police woes (http://capitalnews9.com/content/top_stories/135816/schenectady-mayor-considers-options--martial-law-over-police-woes/Default.aspx)

In a scenario like this where would the sheriff play a role, if any?

[Njon]

Absolutely everyone should consider donating to Sheriff Mack's No Sheriff Left Behind project at http://www.sheriffmack.com/

This is something tangible and realistic that can be done to help win back the republic!

[JoshLowry]

Absolutely everyone should consider donating to Sheriff Mack's No Sheriff Left Behind project at http://www.sheriffmack.com/

This is something tangible and realistic that can be done to help win back the republic!

Cool!

bump!

[ronpaulhawaii]

Sheriff Mack will be speaking at the CoS/Oathkeeper event on 4.19 @ Lexington Green

[AZ Libertarian]

..and it was a fine speech indeed!

[ronpaulhawaii]

..and it was a fine speech indeed!

Howdy AZ :)

Yeah, his was my favorite speech. Great guy! (and he mentioned that he hasn't had much time to stop by here (RPFs), but will when he gets a chance)

Glad you watched it...

[Njon]

Yeah, his was my favorite speech. Great guy! (and he mentioned that he hasn't had much time to stop by here (RPFs), but will when he gets a chance)

Glad you watched it...


Is the event going to be posted on YouTube?

[Njon]

Want Sheriff Mack to be on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano? Go to http://freedomwatch.uservoice.com/pages/freedom_watch_guest_suggestions and vote for him.

[FindLiberty]

Hi Sherrif Mack, glad to have you on board (on these boards too).

Just ask and I'd be honoured to be there to watch your back.

[lookingforMrToolBar]

i also have video interviews with Sheriff Mack which will be posted on my site at One Umbrella For Liberty (http://oneumbrellaforliberty.com) and linked to from here.
The interview was done about one week ago.

[idirtify]

Sheriff Mack,

I just ordered your book. I just learned about your efforts and am very excited. I knew nothing about it before. Thank you for answering these questions.

Feds often do “raids”. And you are right that they check in at the Sheriff’s office first. I hear you saying that the sheriff has the power to say “no”. But if the raid is already underway, can the victim “call the sheriff on the feds”? IOW should the victim of a federal raid just assume that the sheriff has already granted them permission and there is no reason to call in a complaint? Now most of the time there will be a county patrol car at the raid (to “observe / escort”), so would this necessarily be reason to not call in the complaint?

I ask because I foresee the popularity of your book prompting such calls, where everyone has the sheriff’s number programmed in their cell phones - because the chances of being the victim of the feds is no less than the chances of being the victim of any other crime.

[lookingforMrToolBar]

LA County Sheriff keeps the oath
http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/blog/view/id_33/title_LA-County-Sheriff-Keeps-the-Oath/

[fedup100]

LA County Sheriff keeps the oath
http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/blog/view/id_33/title_LA-County-Sheriff-Keeps-the-Oath/

Thank GOD for Sheriff Mack and thank GOD for the L.A. Sheriff. This is a major breakthrough folks.

[Njon]

LA County Sheriff keeps the oath
http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/blog/view/id_33/title_LA-County-Sheriff-Keeps-the-Oath/


Digg this story at http://bit.ly/16J9qt

The submission there is from the Oath Keepers blog itself.

[stellasnowflake]

excerpts from an interview with Sheriff Mack of Graham County, AZ. Here are links to excerpts from the interview and the full interview. The excerpts are for sending to specific targetted publics...

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_45/title_2nd-Amendment-Gun-Rights-Sheriff-Mack/ for NRA, gun rights supporters, etc

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_44/title_Oathkeepers-Movement-Sheriff-Mack/ for military, law enforcement personnell

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_43/title_Sheriff-Mack-Discusses-Ron-Paul/ for Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, etc

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_42/title_MIAC-Report-Sheriff-Mack%E2%80%99s-rebuttal/ for Constitutionalists and to shove in the face of the neocons ha

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_41/title_UN-and-Other-foreign-troops-in-America/ - for the Alex Jones crowd


http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_40/title_EPA-Sheriff-Mack-Speaks-Out-Agains/ for the people in the debunk global warming movement
also for those is this... http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_7/title_Debunking-David-De-Rothschild-And-The-Gl/

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_39/title_New-911-Investigation-Sheriff-Mack/ - for 911 truthers

http://www.oneumbrellaforliberty.com/videos/id_38/title_legalize-Hemp-&-Marijuana-Sheriff-Mack/ for the kids and also medicinal marijuana advocates

the full interview can be found at http://action4liberty.info

help me make these links viral by sending out each one to its specific targetted audience.
the man has a plan and it can work. we can avert further catastrophe and martial law if all we get behind and push

[john_anderson_ii]

Ok, so I got the book and read it and I love it. It is a very short easy read. (I read it while eating lunch in about an hour.)

Having said that, I am not sure about how I feel about handing my county sheriff a book that calls the war on drugs a total farce. I am afraid that he will find you less than credible when he reads your position on this topic. I know a lot of people on here are pot heads that want drugs legalized but I am not one of them and I worry that my sheriff will think that I am after I give him that book to read.

Yes I did inhale when I was younger but I did not like the way it made me feel helpless…..

Anyone else have this concern after reading Sheriff Mack’s book?

I haven't read the book yet, but it's on order. The Federal war on drugs and associated laws are a complete farce. Your state, county, parish or township does indeed have the authority to enact and enforce drug regulations which represent the wishes of their constituency. Not everyone who opposes the war on drugs are pot heads that want drugs legalized, some of us just want to see the Federal Gov't stop making those kinds of decisions for our communities and to let us decide for ourselves. I'm sure your Sheriff will understand this sentiment.

[Sheriff Mack]

I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to all your questions and comments. My travel schedule has consumed my life. I will be in Dallas on Monday and Tuesday, NY on
Wednes, Thurs, and Friday and LA on Saturday and Sunday and then back home on August
3rd.
I hope you all will check out my website www.sheriffmack.com and a new one which supports our next project at www.usa1911.com
The fate of our country is not in the hands of corrupt DC politicians, it's right where it should be; it's in the hands of our local leaders; your sheriff especially. The question is; will they stand and defend us against tyranny? If they do, we win and America survives. If they do it not, then we will watch America die.
Sheriff Mack

[tpreitzel]

He is the keeper of the peace and responsible to protect his citizens from all threats! There are so many things he could do prior to kicking anyone out of his jurisdiction, that I hesitate to make such a declaration here. But I do not want it misunderstood, HE IS THE SOVEREIGN COP OF THE COUNTY!
HAVE CONSTITUION; WILL TRAVEL!

The real power of this union was intended to be at the county level of the various states. With political power properly and constitutionally decentralized to the counties, local citizens could decide the proper environment for raising their kids. Raising kids requires a family to attend functions within the county, e.g. competitive sports, etc. For example, if a perverted exhibitionist agitator from outside the county flaunted local laws erected to protect the kids in a particular county, that agitator should be duly prosecuted under those local laws as long as those laws don't violate the US or state constitutions.

Since you're considering a run for governor of Arizona, how do you view the issue of abortion from a constitutional perspective at both the federal and state level? Personally, I'd be comfortable with supporting a governor decentralizing the decision of abortion to the county, but no further. Passing the buck must stop someplace, and the buck should probably stop at the level of the county since most of family life revolves around activities within the county of residence. Personally, I could not support a governor who would directly support the murder of the unborn by promoting an abortion agenda at the state level.

[Working Poor]

Sheriffs are much cooler than police officers that's for sure.

[btalex1990]

Hey Sheriff Mack I like to ask this question.

Since the body can be immune to viruses by just simply letting yourself being infected and drink plenty of orange juice and vitamins and then once the flu is gone your body is immune to it and won't pass to another person then...


Are you for forced vaccinations (mercury, makes us more vulnerable to viruses) or are you against forced vaccinations?

Do you believe people just be quarantined during their sick periods or should people be quarantined simply because they don't choose manmade and crooked immunizations.


I'm asking you thee questions because I don't trust madmade medical stuff anymore except what I need because I simply don't trust humans anymore after all the junk thats going on anymore. I know I'm human but I'm simply filled with fear over forced vaccinations. trust me I rather suffer for weeks with the flu then deal with forced vaccinations because that stuff will make me throw temper tantrums and make me break stuff and I may become violently ill if I take another vaccine so Am I allowed to keep those things away from me?

[Danke]

Hey Sheriff Mack I like to ask this question.

Are you for forced vaccinations (mercury, makes us more vulnerable to viruses) or are you against forced vaccinations?



YouTube - Forced Vaccine Prevention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzC7dmyKG4E)

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Sheriff Mack may no longer know his account password, last accessed in 2009. However, we need to give him a forum and get him elected to Congress!

[FrankRep]

I was excited about this thread at first, then I saw 2009.

[Indy Vidual]

Thanks for posting Sheriff Mack.
(Sorry if it's already been asked)
If we talk to a Sheriff about these issues, what is a good starting point?



I was excited about this thread at first, then I saw 2009.

Oops...