Wyoming sheriffs put Feds in their place.


From: James W. von Brunn
Here's one the mainstream media isn't going to tell you: County sheriffs in Wyoming are demanding that federal agents actually abide by the Constitution, or face arrest. Even better, a U.S. District Court agreed according to the Keene Free Press:

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the WyomingSheriff's Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated,Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." Go back and re-read this quote. The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried - not in Wyoming, not yet.Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis comments:

"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody." "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF,FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law."The implications are huge:

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files.
Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States.

It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."

this is what is written in the same paper the next day,,FALSE
On April 4th, 2008 rwol9999 says:
"County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro" has utterly false and baseless statements
Saturday, 24 February 2007
I completely agree that it is every citizen's responsibility to not only question government but to question what you read and people say. In that vein, I was interested when I read the article on your website:

"County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro"

and the ruling of District court and the statement that:

The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." in Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J

So, I looked into that case and lo, and behold, the court never issued a ruling or opinion that said anything that was mentioned in the article. The case was dismissed on a joint motion of both parties and the court never issued a ruling or opinion, let alone one that said that.

Anyone can easily verify, as do I, the pleadings filed in any Federal case through PACER, http://pacer.psc.uscourts...

You can do so and see that the article you have posted on your website has utterly false and baseless statements.

Unfortunately for me, that reflects upon the credibility of all that you have on your site. It is a shame because it seems like you are trying to provide the truth.