A
Anonymous
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387ed2016c56.htm
Wyoming Sheriff Kicks
Feds Out Of His County
From Rich Kuchinsky ([email protected]" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
From The Jubilee Newspaper Vol.9, No.6
3-9-99
Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he how has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.
After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction in my county unless I grant it to them."
Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled then state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county.
Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides.
"Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave."
Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the world "sovereign," which is defined by Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State."
Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.
As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court.
Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county.
Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county.
He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws.
As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers.
Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be.
Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance.
.
Edited to ad part 2
http://www.gunowners.org
May 2000
Sheriff Supremacy
by
Richard I. Mack
Director of Public Affairs
Gun Owners of America
On June 2, 1993, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) federal agents along with two Big Horn County, Wyoming deputies raided the home of Ramon and Elvia Castaneda.
The deputies were there only to assist INS agents and basically got caught in the "crossfire" of federal in competency and arrogance. The Castaneda v USA case does something for all Americans that has never been done before; it answers the question; who is the ultimate law enforcement authority in this country?
Big Horn County and its officers were sued in this case because they trusted INS agents to be acting within proper parameters of the law. However, INS agents failed to do their homework and did not even have a warrant.
So the INS asked for assistance from the Big Horn County Sheriff's office to raid the home (late at night) of the Castaneda family to capture some illegal aliens. The Sheriff's office cooperated with the INS and in doing so got them in trouble. However, there was one other problem with the federal agents' homework. The Castanedas were American citizens.
A minor dispute still remains unsettled as to how the armed officers entered the Castaneda home. The Castanedas claimed the agents simply barged in without knocking or appropriately announcing their intentions. The government claims their courteous announcements and knocks were ignored so they entered the home anyway. Regardless, the Castanedas claimed to be asleep at the time of the raid, which would seem to be reasonable thing to be doing late at night.
The Castanedas filed a lawsuit with a host of defendants including Big Horn County and Federal officials. The case was cut and dry. The feds were wrong and their actions were untenable, The Castanedas could have sat back and waited greedily for their attorneys to fill in the amount of their checks, but they wanted to do something else. As part of the settlement the Castanedas wanted some insurance that this type of governmental abuse would not recur or ever happen to others.
To their everlasting credit, the Castanedas took a rather nominal amount of cash in exchange for a policy, which seemed to them, the best "check and balance" systems that would essentially stop the federal government from anymore potential abuses.
Amazingly and quite simply, the Castanedas demanded, as part of their federal lawsuit settlement, that the Big Horn County Sheriff's office devise a policy that required all federal agencies to check with the Sheriff before they could take any action in Big Horn County.
Coincidentally, this policy fell on the lap of Sheriff Dave Mattis who was not even Sheriff at the time of the raid. However, Sheriff Mattis agreed with the policy and helped develop this most novel and unique agreement that the lawyers of the United States Justice Department also signed. However, the Justice Department took steps to keep this agreement secret and undisclosed. Imagine a small town sheriff in a county of only 12,000 people being the overseer of federal agencies within his county!
Is this policy an unusual novelty or a procedure whose time has finally come as an essential and vital part of protecting and serving our citizens? Why would this policy only be beneficial in Big Horn County and not in every in our nations?
Ironically, U.S. Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) considered proposing legislation that would have established a similar policy for the entire nation at just about the same exact time this settlement was being reached. The Justice Department, FBI and other federal agencies fought and lobbied tooth and nail to stop Chenoweth's proposal.
Specifically, the policy to be enforced requires all "federal law enforcement personnel to notify the Sheriff's Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming." Several other guidelines must be followed in regards to showing proper paperwork and the establishments of probable cause to be justify federal law enforcement presence.
What would it hurt (and who would it benefit) if the FBI, IRS, BATF, etc. were doing this in every county? Why would the federal government oppose such common sense practices that they should already be doing anyways? The end result is added safety and protection to the citizens. The only thing preventing this policy from bring realized nationwide is the Sheriff himself failing to take a strong stand and the arrogance and pride of federal agencies.
Two and a half years ago congress conducted hearings regarding the abuse of the IRS. Citizens and IRS employees alike testified about IRS criminality. After any Sheriff has been made aware of the abusive history of the IRS, the crimes committed by the AFT and FBI at WACO and Ruby Ridge, how could he comply with protecting and serving his constituents if he allowed these federal agencies unbridled authority in his county?
The United States Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) grants 4 law enforcement categories to the federal government: felonies committed on the high seas, counterfeiting, postal issues and treason. Protecting our nation's borders would also be an appropriate constitutional federal obligation. But many of these federal agencies have become powers unto themselves and are the tails wagging the dog.
Many of these federal agencies have lost sight of their true missions and have gotten for whom they work and who they are suppose to serve and protect. Now we are coming to the point of being forced to turn to our Sheriffs and local authorities to protect and serve us from federal "protectors".
In fact, what does a Sheriff who knows and understands the significance of the Second Amendment and his oath of office do when agents come in his jurisdiction to confiscate guns of law abiding citizens? Castaneda v USA proves the Sheriff is the answer, Sheriff Mattis has proven it works and common sense proves all Sheriffs should be doing it.
Why is the Sheriff the ultimate and leading law enforcement authority in America? Because he is elected by the ultimate power source, the people, and the answers directly to them. He is not an appointed bureaucrat and lives in the community he serves. He is in all matters, the people's defender.
Wyoming Sheriff Kicks
Feds Out Of His County
From Rich Kuchinsky ([email protected]" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false
From The Jubilee Newspaper Vol.9, No.6
3-9-99
Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming, said this week that as a result of Case #96-CV099-J, U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming, he how has a written policy that forbids federal officials from entering his county and exercising authority over county residents unless he is notified first of their intentions.
After explaining their mission, Mattis said he grants them permission to proceed if he is convinced they are operating within the legal parameters and authority limitations set forth in the U.S. Constitution.
The sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, he quickly and confidently replied, "None whatsoever." He explained by saying, "They know they do not have jurisdiction in my county unless I grant it to them."
Mattis clarified his position by saying the federal court had ruled then state of Wyoming is a sovereign state and the state constitution plainly states that a county sheriff is the top law enforcement official in the county.
Additionally, Sheriff Mattis contends that the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clearly defines the geographic territories where the federal government has jurisdiction. Amendment X, he said, states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Therefore, Mattis thoroughly believes the Feds have very limited powers in any state unless the local high-sheriff allows them to exercise power beyond that which the Constitution provides.
"Put another way," Mattis said, "if the sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county, he has the constitutional power and right to keep them out or ask them to leave."
Accompanied with other legal interpretations Mattis stands on the definition of the world "sovereign," which is defined by Webster's as "paramount, supreme. Having supreme rank or power. Independent: a sovereign State."
Mattis said he grew weary of the Feds coming into his county and running rough-shod over county residents: i.e., illegally searching, seizing property, confiscating bank accounts, restricting the free use of private lands and other abuses, without a valid warrant and without first following due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.
As long as Mattis remains sheriff he says he will continue to see to it that the citizens of his county get their day in court.
Mattis went on to say that, to his knowledge, even the IRS has not attempted to seize any citizen's real property, bank account or any other private-owned possessions since he ran the Feds out of his county.
Sheriff Mattis emphasized that he is not a radical man. He said he is only dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of the citizens of his county.
He added that ordinary citizens are not the only ones bound by and expected to obey laws. Elected officials and government employees at all levels of government are also bound by and should be expected to obey certain laws.
As long as Sheriff Mattis is the high-sheriff of Big Horn County, he seems determined to make sure private citizens and government officials alike act within the law and their designated powers.
Sheriff Mattis came across as a soft-spoken, polite man whose only interest is protecting the citizens he was elected to serve. That being the case, he might be the sheriff for as long as he wants to be.
Sheriff Mattis is hopeful that other sheriffs will assume the same stance.
.
Edited to ad part 2
http://www.gunowners.org
May 2000
Sheriff Supremacy
by
Richard I. Mack
Director of Public Affairs
Gun Owners of America
On June 2, 1993, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) federal agents along with two Big Horn County, Wyoming deputies raided the home of Ramon and Elvia Castaneda.
The deputies were there only to assist INS agents and basically got caught in the "crossfire" of federal in competency and arrogance. The Castaneda v USA case does something for all Americans that has never been done before; it answers the question; who is the ultimate law enforcement authority in this country?
Big Horn County and its officers were sued in this case because they trusted INS agents to be acting within proper parameters of the law. However, INS agents failed to do their homework and did not even have a warrant.
So the INS asked for assistance from the Big Horn County Sheriff's office to raid the home (late at night) of the Castaneda family to capture some illegal aliens. The Sheriff's office cooperated with the INS and in doing so got them in trouble. However, there was one other problem with the federal agents' homework. The Castanedas were American citizens.
A minor dispute still remains unsettled as to how the armed officers entered the Castaneda home. The Castanedas claimed the agents simply barged in without knocking or appropriately announcing their intentions. The government claims their courteous announcements and knocks were ignored so they entered the home anyway. Regardless, the Castanedas claimed to be asleep at the time of the raid, which would seem to be reasonable thing to be doing late at night.
The Castanedas filed a lawsuit with a host of defendants including Big Horn County and Federal officials. The case was cut and dry. The feds were wrong and their actions were untenable, The Castanedas could have sat back and waited greedily for their attorneys to fill in the amount of their checks, but they wanted to do something else. As part of the settlement the Castanedas wanted some insurance that this type of governmental abuse would not recur or ever happen to others.
To their everlasting credit, the Castanedas took a rather nominal amount of cash in exchange for a policy, which seemed to them, the best "check and balance" systems that would essentially stop the federal government from anymore potential abuses.
Amazingly and quite simply, the Castanedas demanded, as part of their federal lawsuit settlement, that the Big Horn County Sheriff's office devise a policy that required all federal agencies to check with the Sheriff before they could take any action in Big Horn County.
Coincidentally, this policy fell on the lap of Sheriff Dave Mattis who was not even Sheriff at the time of the raid. However, Sheriff Mattis agreed with the policy and helped develop this most novel and unique agreement that the lawyers of the United States Justice Department also signed. However, the Justice Department took steps to keep this agreement secret and undisclosed. Imagine a small town sheriff in a county of only 12,000 people being the overseer of federal agencies within his county!
Is this policy an unusual novelty or a procedure whose time has finally come as an essential and vital part of protecting and serving our citizens? Why would this policy only be beneficial in Big Horn County and not in every in our nations?
Ironically, U.S. Congressman Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) considered proposing legislation that would have established a similar policy for the entire nation at just about the same exact time this settlement was being reached. The Justice Department, FBI and other federal agencies fought and lobbied tooth and nail to stop Chenoweth's proposal.
Specifically, the policy to be enforced requires all "federal law enforcement personnel to notify the Sheriff's Office in advance of any federal law enforcement operation in Big Horn County, Wyoming." Several other guidelines must be followed in regards to showing proper paperwork and the establishments of probable cause to be justify federal law enforcement presence.
What would it hurt (and who would it benefit) if the FBI, IRS, BATF, etc. were doing this in every county? Why would the federal government oppose such common sense practices that they should already be doing anyways? The end result is added safety and protection to the citizens. The only thing preventing this policy from bring realized nationwide is the Sheriff himself failing to take a strong stand and the arrogance and pride of federal agencies.
Two and a half years ago congress conducted hearings regarding the abuse of the IRS. Citizens and IRS employees alike testified about IRS criminality. After any Sheriff has been made aware of the abusive history of the IRS, the crimes committed by the AFT and FBI at WACO and Ruby Ridge, how could he comply with protecting and serving his constituents if he allowed these federal agencies unbridled authority in his county?
The United States Constitution (Article 1 Section 8) grants 4 law enforcement categories to the federal government: felonies committed on the high seas, counterfeiting, postal issues and treason. Protecting our nation's borders would also be an appropriate constitutional federal obligation. But many of these federal agencies have become powers unto themselves and are the tails wagging the dog.
Many of these federal agencies have lost sight of their true missions and have gotten for whom they work and who they are suppose to serve and protect. Now we are coming to the point of being forced to turn to our Sheriffs and local authorities to protect and serve us from federal "protectors".
In fact, what does a Sheriff who knows and understands the significance of the Second Amendment and his oath of office do when agents come in his jurisdiction to confiscate guns of law abiding citizens? Castaneda v USA proves the Sheriff is the answer, Sheriff Mattis has proven it works and common sense proves all Sheriffs should be doing it.
Why is the Sheriff the ultimate and leading law enforcement authority in America? Because he is elected by the ultimate power source, the people, and the answers directly to them. He is not an appointed bureaucrat and lives in the community he serves. He is in all matters, the people's defender.
