CNS News Ticker

Sports Tickers






Stock Market Indices
&ltPARAM NAME="1:multiline" VALUE="true">
[Scroll Left] <     • STOP •     > [Scroll Right]



Haircut: 25 Cents / Shave: 15 Cents / Talk Of The Town: Free



The Inside Track ... News With Views You Won't Hear On The News ...


New GlowBarber Shoppe Gazette Articles Are Also Indexed Online At ... http://del.icio.us/Gazette
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Sheriffs Put Federal Officers On Choke Chains


LAW ENFORCEMENT / WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS



FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"


Smiley Flag Waver "If a 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 or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "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."



WYOMING SHERIFFS PUT FEDERAL OFFICERS ON CHOKE CHAINS


County sheriffs in Wyoming are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Speaking at a press conference following the recent US District Court decision (case No 2:96-cv-099-J) Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis stated that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval.

"If a 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 or retain them in custody." The court decision came about after Mattis & other members of the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS in the Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs, stating that, "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."

The Wyoming sheriffs are demanding access to all BATF files to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibit the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. 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 state courts.

Sheriff Mattis stated: "I am reacting 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."

This case is evidence that the Tenth Amendment is not yet dead in the United States. It may also 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 Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government and specifically prohibited to the States.

Case Notes:
Case: Castaneda v. USA
Filed: 10th May 1996
Closed: 29th April 1997
Case No: 2:1996cv00099 Wyoming District Court, Casper
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights


Constitutionally the sheriff is the highest and only elected law-enforcement officer in the state. Also, agencies that are part of the executive branch do not have jurisdiction outside DC.

To its everlasting disgrace, the Legislature of Massachusetts [a/k/a/ Taxachusetts] has abolished the Sheriffs in the state that gave us Lexington, Boston and Concord! This was totally unconstitutional and never should have happened! Without the Sheriff you have no elected law enforcement office! The State Troopers are an arm of the governor's office and have no constitutional standing.)

"Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff is the highest law enforcement official and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."


BENEFITING FROM SEPARATE JURISDICTIONS

Last week we wrote about "Using Separate Jurisdictions," and how that concept could and should be implemented for the protection of citizens in all States. And, as often happens, readers responded positively.

In fact, the State of Montana, we were notified, has just such a bill in the House right now! We understand that it has a good chance of passing, too.

The introduction of Montana House Bill 415 states the purpose concisely:

"An act regulating arrests, searches, and seizures by Federal employees; providing that Federal employees shall obtain the County Sheriff's permission to arrest, search, and seize; providing for prosecution of Federal employees violating this act; rejecting Federal laws purporting to give Federal employees the authority of a County Sheriff in this State; and providing an immediate effective date."

The bill recoups many Tenth Amendment policing rights of the State and "declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state . . ."

Section 1 sets the purpose of the bill to "prevent misadventure affecting Montana citizens and their rights" by federal employees. Section 2 declares that in most cases federal employees must first seek the "permission" of the Sheriff, or the sheriff's "designee" before attempting to make an arrest, search, or seizure. And Section 3 makes it mandatory that County Prosecutors prosecute federal employees violating this law.

The words "federal employees" is a very interesting term as used in this bill. That would include all federal police and regulatory agents -- the IRS, FBI, EPA, BATF, and the rest of them. And by extension, it would also include all federal telephone wiretaps and snooping through e-mail files on the Internet.

The Montana Proposal is an excellent beginning in protecting the rights of citizens against an out of control federal bureaucracy. The only change we would propose is that the sheriff's office be required to attend and supervise all actions by federal employees -- not necessarily to participate as a law officer, but primarily as an official representative of the local people. The function then, would be to insure that all Constitutional rights of local citizens within that jurisdiction were respected.

All public officials take an oath of office in which they swear to support the United States Constitution. And the Bill of Rights is part of our Constitution. Therefore, any public official violating the rights and liberties of a citizen should be immediately arrested by the closest available law officer. The Montana Proposal would make that possible, and tend to keep all concerned honest.

This concept is under study in other states too. In fact, as the Knoxville Journal reported last month: 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.

According to the report, the sheriff grants permission on a case-by-case basis only. When asked what, if any, repercussions he had gotten from the Feds, the sheriff 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 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.

It is time that safeguards for the rights of American citizens were written into law and strictly enforced in every State in the nation. Montana House Bill 415 goes far in getting that started.

We suggest that all Americans demand that a similar bill be passed in their own respective States. Towards that end, we include the full text of the Montana bill below.


MONTANA HOUSE BILL 415

"An act regulating arrests, searches, and seizures by Federal employees; providing that Federal employees shall obtain the County Sheriff's permission to arrest, search, and seize; providing for prosecution of Federal employees violating this act; rejecting Federal laws purporting to give Federal employees the authority of a County Sheriff in this State; and providing an immediate effective date."

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Montana:

Section 1. Purpose.

It is the intent of the legislature to ensure maximum cooperation between federal employees and local law enforcement authorities; to ensure that federal employees who carry out arrests, searches, and seizures in this state receive the best local knowledge and expertise available; and to prevent misadventure affecting Montana citizens and their rights that results from lack of cooperation or communication between federal employees operating in Montana and properly constituted local law enforcement authorities.

Section 2. County sheriff's permission for federal arrests, searches, and seizures -- exceptions.

(1) A federal employee who is not designated by Montana law as a Montana peace officer may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur unless:

(a) the arrest, search, or seizure will take place on a federal enclave for which jurisdiction has been actively ceded to the United States of America by a Montana statute;

(b) the federal employee witnesses the commission of a crime the nature of which requires an immediate arrest;

(c) the arrest, search, or seizure is under the provisions of 46-6-411 or 46-6-412;

(d) the intended subject of the arrest, search, or seizure is an employee of the sheriff's office or is an elected county or state officer; or

(e) the federal employee has probable cause to believe that the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure has close connections with the sheriff, which connections are likely to result in the subject being informed of the impending arrest, search, or seizure.

(2) The county sheriff or designee of the sheriff may refuse permission for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.

(3) A federal employee who desires to exercise a subsection (1)(d) exception shall obtain the written permission of the Montana attorney general for the arrest, search, or seizure unless the resulting delay in obtaining the permission would probably cause serious harm to one or more individuals or to a community or would probably cause flight of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure in order to avoid prosecution. The attorney general may refuse the permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.

(4) A federal employee who desires to exercise a subsection (1)(e) exception shall obtain the written permission of the Montana attorney general. The request for permission must include a written statement, under oath, describing the federal employee's probable cause. The attorney general may refuse the request for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.

(5) (a) A permission request to the county sheriff or Montana attorney general must contain:

(i) the name of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure;

(ii) a clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure and a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause;

(iii) a description of specific assets, if any, to be searched for or seized;

(iv) a statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and

(v) the address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted.

(b) The request may be in letter form, either typed or handwritten, but must be countersigned with the original signature of the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff or by the Montana attorney general, to constitute valid permission. The permission is valid for 48 hours after it is signed. The sheriff or attorney general shall keep a copy of the permission request on file.

Section 3. Remedies.

(1) An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and individuals involved must be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The individuals involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offenses in Title 45.

(2) To the extent possible, the victims' rights provisions of Title 46 must be extended to the victim or victims by the justice system persons and entities involved in the prosecution.

(3) The county attorney has no discretion not to prosecute once a claim of violation of [section 2] has been made by the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff, and failure to abide by this mandate subjects the county attorney to recall by the voters and to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.

Section 4. Invalid federal laws.

Pursuant to the 10th amendment to the United States constitution and this state's compact with the other states, the legislature declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.

Section 5. Effective date.

[This act] is effective on passage and approval.

Section 6. Severability.

If a part of [this act] is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of [this act] is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.




FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below




Monday, November 06, 2006

Political Sellout Of U.S. Property Rights


POLITICS / INTERNATIONALISM: POLITICAL EROSION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS


Jim Kouri



Smiley Flag WaverBoth major political parties have leaders who believe in internationalism. And Americans are selling out their votes and their legacy for the price of a new social program.

In a speech recently delivered at the Tenth Annual National Conference on Property Rights of the Property Rights Foundation of America, international trade and regulatory law expert Lawrence Kogan discussed how misguided American internationalists are actually helping foreign governments and environmental and health extremists to weaken the US Constitution and the exclusive private property rights guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.



INT'L. LAW EXPERT: US INTERNATIONALISTS SELLING OUT US PROPERTY RIGHTS



~ Jim Kouri, CPP
November 5, 2006
NewsWithViews.com


As the November elections approach, the overwhelming majority of Americans are totally unaware that their homeland as they know is being dramatically changed -- and not for the better. Both major political parties have leaders who believe in internationalism. And Americans are selling out their votes and their legacy for the price of a new social program.

In today's world, Internationalism is most commonly expressed as an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace. People who express this view take pride in not only being a citizen of their respective countries, but of being a "citizen of the world."

Internationalists feel obliged to assist the world through leadership and charity. Internationalists advocate the presence of a United Nations-style organization, and often support a stronger version of a world government.

Contributors to this vision of Internationalism believe in a world government, and express contempt for the US. For instance, Albert Einstein, a supporter of One World Government, warned of what he called "the follies of patriotism" being "an infantile sickness."

In a speech recently delivered at the Tenth Annual National Conference on Property Rights of the Property Rights Foundation of America, international trade and regulatory law expert Lawrence Kogan discussed how misguided American internationalists are actually helping foreign governments and environmental and health extremists to weaken the US Constitution and the exclusive private property rights guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

These US politicians are promoting the adoption of strict regulatory laws and flexible compulsory licensing mechanisms used in other countries within Europe and Latin America that are "known for their socialist solutions to 'deemed' market failures, populist wealth redistribution policies, significantly higher regulatory burdens, ideological aversion to scientific and economic protocols and the deployment of novel technologies, and slower economic growth rates."

According to Mr. Kogan, these mechanisms are being used to "indirectly take [away] private property for ... public use which also benefits new private owners. They constitute a new genre of 'takings' based on the 'public trust doctrine' that are specially designed to dispense with the need to pay 'just compensation,' and thus, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution's Bill of Rights ... And, such rules are being systematically imported into and/or reactivated within the US under our very noses."

"Perhaps the simplest way to appreciate the enormity of the problem before us," says Kogan, "is to conceive of the new genre of private property 'takings' theories now being promoted both here and abroad using the letter 'C' ... The 7 'C's stand for convergence of regulatory systems, centralized and state planned economies, communal property, control by government, circumvention of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, compulsory licensing of intellectual property which is the eminent domain of real property, and competition, as in the need for disguised protectionism to level the global economic playing field."

© 2006 Jim Kouri- All Rights Reserved

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, and are not not for sale or re-sale.




Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.

He writes for many police and crime magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, and others. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores.




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below






Wednesday, November 01, 2006

American People Are Tough On Activist Judges


U.S. JUDICIARY / WHY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TOUGH ON ACTIVIST JUDGES



Judicial Watch Mast Head



Smiley Flag WaverOne former Suprene Court Justice says "Yes!" Sandra Day O'Connor wrote an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal recently, complaining that the anger the American people have expressed towards our nation's judges is excessive and threatens the proper functioning of the judicial system. Specifically, Justice O'Connor writes" "the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history -- using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat ti the independent judiciary."


Can any of you think of reasons why the American people might have a problem with some judges? I can think of more than a few.



From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Tom Fitton


Are The American People Too Hard On Activist Judges?


One former Supreme Court Justice says "Yes!" Sandra Day O'Connor wrote an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal recently, complaining that the anger the American people have expressed towards our nation's judges is excessive and threatens the proper functioning of the judicial system. Specifically, Justice O'Connor writes: "the breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history -- using judges as punching bags presents a grave threat to the independent judiciary."


Can any of you think of reasons why the American people might have a problem with some judges? I can think of more than a few.


Just one month ago, Judicial Watch uncovered the fact that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who ruled the government's anti-terrorism wiretapping program unconstitutional, had a potential conflict of interest she failed to disclose. (She served on the board of a foundation that gave money to the ACLU, the lead plaintiff in the suit challenging the eavesdropping program.)


Then, there are also instances where judges seem to take advantage of the system for their own personal gain. For example, Judicial Watch recently filed a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles which is paying judges cash benefits that are prohibited by state law. Overall, the county wastes $20 million each year in taxpayer funds. When people hear that judges are enriching themselves at the expense of taxpayers, they ought to be upset.


And then there are the decisions -- the horrible instances of judicial activism where the U.S. Constitution is scrapped in favor of the personal whims of liberal judges (more often than not acting at the behest of the ultra-leftist ACLU.) Case in point: The ruling, since overturned, by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that school children cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the phrase, "Under God." That is the type of judicial activist decision -- and there are many -- that undermines faith in the judiciary.


According to Judge William Pryor, who offered a rebuttal op-ed to the O'Connor piece, the American people have a right to express their distaste at such dreadful and damaging decisions. "The judiciary has rendered some unjust decisions that deserved harsh rebuke," he wrote. Judge Pryor continued, "Many who complain about criticisms of the judiciary concede that some criticism of judicial decisions is fair. That assessment is too mild. Occasionally criticism of judicial decisions is essential to the progress of our constitutional republic."

I couldn't agree more.

Thomas Fitton

President




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below





Monday, October 23, 2006

Supreme Court Rejects Scouts Constitutional Rights


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RIGHTS / U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS BOY SCOUTS / SEA SCOUTS FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS TO EXPRESSIVE ASSOCIATION



Another In The Bush, Republican Party, Liberal Supreme Court Appointee, Christian / Conservative Betrayals ...
A Liberal, Democrat-Controlled House And Senate In 2007 Will Guarantee A Deluge Of The Same ...


Thomas Moore Law center Mast Head



Smiley Flag WaverThe United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

“It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”


News Alert


Thomas More Law Center Decries Supreme Court Refusal To Review Decision Penalizing Sea Scouts For Policy Excluding Gays And Atheists


ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, expressed its disappointment that last week the United States Supreme Court declined to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing the City of Berkeley, CA to deprive the Sea Scouts of free berthing privileges given to other nonprofit organizations because the Sea Scouts refused to repudiate their association with the Boy Scouts of America and its policy requiring exclusion of gays and atheists.

The Sea Scouts are a public service organization that serves local youth by teaching them to sail and learn other skills such as carpentry and plumbing. It is associated with the Boy Scouts of America and must abide by BSA’s policy excluding gays and atheists.

The Law Center had filed a friend of the court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Evan v. City of Berkeley. The Law Center’s brief argues that Berkeley’s decision to strip the Sea Scouts of a benefit extended to other public service organizations because the City disagrees with BSA’s policy places an unconstitutional condition on receipt of public benefits that violates the First Amendment.

Patrick T. Gillen, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who authored the brief, observed that Berkeley’s policy is a blatant effort to penalize the Sea Scouts for an exercise of their First Amendment rights. “The Supreme Court’s decision lets a truly tragic injustice stand. In this case militant homosexual activists have victimized the underprivileged in a vindictive effort to punish anyone associated with the Boy Scouts of America.”

The United States Supreme Court, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, recognized that the Scout’s policy was an exercise of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. In the aftermath of Dale, the City of Berkeley demanded that the Sea Scouts repudiate its association with BSA’s policy and, when the Sea Scouts’ failed Berkeley’s litmus test, the City stripped the Sea Scouts of the free berth extended to public service organizations. The California Supreme Court rejected the Sea Scout’s claim that Berkeley’s decision to strip them of free berths violated their First Amendment right to expressive association.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commented, “It is disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to reverse an outrageous example of how homosexuals use the powers of government to discriminate against an outstanding youth group in order to force compliance with their worldview on sex, marriage and religion.”




The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.


Thomas More Law Center 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive
P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
© 2006 Thomas More Law Center
about us | resources | newsroom | donate |




E-Mail To A Friend Send A Link For This Article To A Friend

Send an e-mail message with a link to this article to anyone/everyone in your address book. Click on e-mail [envelope] icon, below