A focus on elections for sheriff, court rules in our favor.

are not above him. He is elected. The judges are appointed. A sheriff, because he is elected, is actually the ONLY constitutionally correct officer of the law there is. Unfortunately, his office has been reduced to delivering warrants and working in the courts. This is my understanding after years of studying and being in the courts. I live in Newport News Virginia, and if you look at a city police officers badge on his uniform it states proudly "Corporation of Newport News." City's and towns are now run as corporations. Which means they are a for profit business, not a government of the people. This is why they don't have to adhere to the constitution. Your courts, and all "government" agencies are all employees of the same corporation. They are a business and you are a consumer. As long as you do business with them, you have to play by their rules, and their rules don't include the constitution.

I suspect you are right. That doesn't change the thrust of the ruling though. A federal agent of a Constitutionally authorized agency may enter the county but, if they were to prosecute their office in a manner which isn't explicitly authorized in the Federal or State Constitutions the county sheriff can detain them. This leads to an interesting questions which I doubt any of us can answer at this time:

If the agency isn't explicitly authorized in Federal Constitution, does the presence of that agent conducting business on behalf of that unauthorized agency automatically represent a violation of the Constitution?

I don't know of any case law for this, and I wonder if it has ever even been ruled on. This is a question that a local sheriff would need to find the answer to either through legal research or court.

If he's shot and killed, then we need to be able to supply a replacement. Ideas are bullet proof. The power of a sheriff is only county wide so there isn't much incentive for the feds to kill them.

Its thoughts like "I wonder when he will be shot" that lead people to sit on their asses doing nothing out of fear and apathy. We can't fall into that trap.

I'm looking things up for this during off time at work today. I'll update the post at some point tonight (probably late) and bump it. This can really work as part of the solution.

Here is a Sheriff who knows how powerful his office is!!!

Sheriff boots Feds from his county
By Phil Hamby

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 now 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 the 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 word 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.