IP: Wyoming sheriffs impose severe limits on federal enforcers!
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 16:07:48 -0500
This is very off topic, for which I apologize, but it will be of interest
to most of the members of this list.
Jonathan S. Shapiro, Ph. D.
Research Staff Member
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Phone: +1 914 784 7085 (Tieline: 863)
Fax: +1 914 784 6576
---------------------- Forwarded by Jonathan S Shapiro/Watson/IBM on
01/02/2000 04:07 PM ---------------------------
Dave Farber <firstname.lastname@example.org>@admin.listbox.com on 01/02/2000 03:53:28
Please respond to email@example.com
Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: IP: Wyoming sheriffs impose severe limits on federal enforcers!
>Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:20:20 -0800
>To: Recipient List
>From: Jim Warren <email@example.com>
>A forward of a forward from a friend. Source unknown; ACCURACY UNKNOWN
>(but it should be easy enough to check, since the U.S. District Court
>decision is cited).
>If true, it would seem to have some "interesting" potentials for *all*
>sorts of state control over federal enforcers and perhaps even federal
>surveillance operators -- IRS, DEA, NSA, FBI, BATF, Customs inspectors and
>collectors (Wyoming borders Canada), etc.
> > County sheriffs in Wyoming are insisting that all federal law
> >officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all
> >activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. Speaking at a
> >conference following the recent US District Court decision (case No
> >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 con-
> > stitutional 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
> >Sheriffs' Association brought a suit against both the BATF and the IRS
> in the
> >Wyoming federal court district seeking restoration of the protections
> >in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution. The
> >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
> >registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm
> owners. The
> >sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the
> >of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without
> >to due process in state courts. Sheriff Mattis stated,
> > "I am reacting to the actions of federal employees who have at-
> > tempted 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 in-
> > tend 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
> >of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the
> >exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which
> >Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not
> granted to
> >the federal government and specifically prohibited to the States.
> >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