| | | Page 1, 2 | Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately
| Jimmy Freeman
User ID: 297762
9/14/2007 2:41 AM | | Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately | Quote |
It does appear that something did happen in Montana, and that there was action taken to prevent Federal Agents from taking action without the consent or knowledge of local Law enforcement. It appears the attempt has been stalled. Rep. Rick Maedje(R)- Fortine, Montana drives home a 'very critical point' suggesting that the State, County, and other municipalities within the State have waived their sovereignty by acceptance of Federal funding.
Understanding the Money and the Federal Reserve system is critical to understanding the problems we as Americans face. Thank you Rep. Rick Maedje for bringing this to our attention. Following is a copy of a Bill that was proposed in Montana.
2005 Montana Legislature
About Bill -- Links
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
INTRODUCED BY R. HAWK
A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT REGULATING ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MUST OBTAIN THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S PERMISSION TO ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZE; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; 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:
NEW SECTION. 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 local law enforcement authorities.
NEW SECTION. 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 an exception under subsection (1)(d) 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 allow time for 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 an exception under subsection (1)(e) 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 or a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause;
(iii) a description of the specific things 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.
NEW SECTION. Section 3. Remedies. (1) An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and the persons 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 persons involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense 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 a prosecution.
(3) The county attorney shall prosecute once a claim of violation of [section 2] has been made by the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff, and failure to prosecute subjects the county attorney to recall by the voters and to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.
NEW SECTION. 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.
NEW SECTION. Section 5. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.
NEW SECTION. 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.
- END -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latest Version of HB 284 (HB0284.01)
Processed for the Web on January 13, 2005 (5:21pm)
New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.
See the status of this bill for the bill's primary sponsor.
Status of this Bill | 2005 Legislature | Leg. Branch Home
This bill in WP 5.1 | All versions of all bills (WP 5.1 format)
Authorized print version w/line numbers (PDF format)
[ NEW SEARCH ]
Prepared by Montana Legislative Services
(406) 444-3064
Visit www.americanpeoplesparty.com |
| interest bump
User ID: 297887
9/14/2007 10:23 AM | | Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately | Quote |
... for Montana ...
 |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 257587
9/14/2007 1:14 PM | | Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately | Quote |
This has got to stop. There is NO COURT RULING that provides County Sheriif's the authority to stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws or regulations.
I wish it were different, but it is not. The Printz case out of Montana dealt with the background checks on firearms purchases. Sheriff Printz claimed his Ravalli County Sheriff's office could not AFFORD to do the federally mandated background checks. THAT IS the case he took to court, claiming one thing and one thing only: The federal government should not be allowed to require any Sheriff to enforce a federal law UNLESS the federal government paid the local Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court agreed.
As such, it is settled law that the federal government may itself enforce its regulations or laws in any state, but it may not require the states to enforce that law UNLESS the federal government gives the state the money to do so. The state may agree not to take the money, but as an example, the DUI laws are attached to highway repair monies given the states. Virtually every state now has a 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, and a ban on open containers.
States did this not because they wanted to, but because of the "carrot and stick" relationship with the federal government.
The EPA, as another example, provides funds to willing states if those stakes take over "primacy" in enforcing EPA regulations. The state must use those federal funds to enforce federal regulations and they benefit marginally from some of the money which may be used for other things. Many states have taken up this "carrot and stick" offer.
The federal government has a choke chain on the states. The Sheriff's do not, nor do most the legislatures of the states.
That simply is reality.
The Supreme Court has not and I fear will not ever disturb this relationship. Too much of the system is reliant on the carrot and stick principle.
So, when you hear the frankly untrue story about Sherrif Dave in Wyoming "kicking out the Feds", it is patently untrue. Infact, there is not even a court ruling on that matter.
Worse yet, the judge in the case had to write a letter for the public explaining that the rumors were untrue, that the case never went to trial, was dismissed under a settlement agreement, and the Judge posted a notice that warns anyone who believes they can stop a federal agent from enforcing a law or regulation will be jailed- basically.
I wish it were different, but it is not.
I wish the local Sheriff could be the first line of defense for a state's particular Constitutional protections, many of which which are more precise and create more protections against overbearing government than the federal constitution does, but this just isn't the case under present law.
Frankly, there is roon in the courts for cases which can begin to set a line of legal authority in place that chips away at federal suprememcy issues, and there are lawyers and organizations doing just that- carefully and rather quietly.
Karen Bud-Fallen is one Wyoming Attorney doing just that with respect to land use issues and private property rights.
Montana passedx the first law in the nation outlawing its own state from selling any state owned lands to the feds except for Federal Constitutionally expressed purposes.
County Commissioner could enact a host of ordinances to throw sand in the gears of the feds, and yes local Sheriff's could work along with local officials to do the same.
Let me go another step further and offer some insight on how screwed up the state/federal relationship actually is.
In the 2005 session of the Montana legislature, I carried a bill in the Montana House on the Patriot Act. It was a bipartisan effort with Montana Sen. Jim Elliot. We could not outright ban state law enforcement from participating in activities or expending money to help federal agents enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that were in conflict with our state Constitution, so we passed a resolution (not law) telling Montana law enforcement that the legislature did not want them expending money to help federal law enforcement enforce certain provisions of the patriot act.
Why couldn't we ban that practice outright? Becuase the federal government gives local law enforcement all kinds of money for Meth problems, drunk driving, new equipment, and a whole host of things. The conditions attached to many of those "carrots" include a provision that the local law enforcement accepting that money will cooperate with federal agents.
If we were to write a law banning cooperation, that law would be audited by the federal agencies, and the state doing so would lose money it actually relies on to operate some basic functions of law enforcement.
That is how screwed up the system is. I know of only one way to stop that- look at your W-2 form. The amount going to the feds should be the amount going to the states. The amount going to the states should be the amount going to the feds. The tax system is set up backwards in my view. If that were to change, the states would have all the autonomy they need.
As it is, states will continue to be assimilated under a Federal "mother hen" and have less meaning and power as time goes on. It is just that simple.
I would suggest, that unless a new Supreme Court views the 10th Amendment more in keeping with the intent of the original framers, in 50 years, we won't need states except for administration of federal programs, laws, and regulations.
The other option is an amendment to the US Constitution.
I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but as a state legislator, I have had to face the reality of working within and indeed trying to change the system we have for the better.
-Rep. Rick Maedje(R)- Fortine, Montana Quoting: lowly legislator 91339
Constit uh er Cosnti er uh Costi well that old ass yellow piece of paper that is in that case thingie in DC. The constitu uh that thing will be ammended to guarantee the right to housing at taxpayers expenxe, job training for the urban disenfranchised, the right to free rides to 3 or more polling places for undocumented democrats/beaners...finally the right to get a disabiliity check for having the DTs from coming off of crack and/or meth and my favorite..the right to have a tummy tuck when those 8 $$$$ babies have skretched the ho's stomach and she don't wanna look too unsexy for the next babydaddy.....they have sold us for a whore, they have sown the wind....their whirlwind even now spooleth up.....uyea verily.....how qabout deliver the friggin mail and keep the borders secure....that's the main thing we need feds for....well 1/2 out of 2 ain't that bad..... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 257587
9/14/2007 1:15 PM | | Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately | Quote |
This has got to stop. There is NO COURT RULING that provides County Sheriif's the authority to stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws or regulations.
I wish it were different, but it is not. The Printz case out of Montana dealt with the background checks on firearms purchases. Sheriff Printz claimed his Ravalli County Sheriff's office could not AFFORD to do the federally mandated background checks. THAT IS the case he took to court, claiming one thing and one thing only: The federal government should not be allowed to require any Sheriff to enforce a federal law UNLESS the federal government paid the local Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court agreed.
As such, it is settled law that the federal government may itself enforce its regulations or laws in any state, but it may not require the states to enforce that law UNLESS the federal government gives the state the money to do so. The state may agree not to take the money, but as an example, the DUI laws are attached to highway repair monies given the states. Virtually every state now has a 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, and a ban on open containers.
States did this not because they wanted to, but because of the "carrot and stick" relationship with the federal government.
The EPA, as another example, provides funds to willing states if those stakes take over "primacy" in enforcing EPA regulations. The state must use those federal funds to enforce federal regulations and they benefit marginally from some of the money which may be used for other things. Many states have taken up this "carrot and stick" offer.
The federal government has a choke chain on the states. The Sheriff's do not, nor do most the legislatures of the states.
That simply is reality.
The Supreme Court has not and I fear will not ever disturb this relationship. Too much of the system is reliant on the carrot and stick principle.
So, when you hear the frankly untrue story about Sherrif Dave in Wyoming "kicking out the Feds", it is patently untrue. Infact, there is not even a court ruling on that matter.
Worse yet, the judge in the case had to write a letter for the public explaining that the rumors were untrue, that the case never went to trial, was dismissed under a settlement agreement, and the Judge posted a notice that warns anyone who believes they can stop a federal agent from enforcing a law or regulation will be jailed- basically.
I wish it were different, but it is not.
I wish the local Sheriff could be the first line of defense for a state's particular Constitutional protections, many of which which are more precise and create more protections against overbearing government than the federal constitution does, but this just isn't the case under present law.
Frankly, there is roon in the courts for cases which can begin to set a line of legal authority in place that chips away at federal suprememcy issues, and there are lawyers and organizations doing just that- carefully and rather quietly.
Karen Bud-Fallen is one Wyoming Attorney doing just that with respect to land use issues and private property rights.
Montana passedx the first law in the nation outlawing its own state from selling any state owned lands to the feds except for Federal Constitutionally expressed purposes.
County Commissioner could enact a host of ordinances to throw sand in the gears of the feds, and yes local Sheriff's could work along with local officials to do the same.
Let me go another step further and offer some insight on how screwed up the state/federal relationship actually is.
In the 2005 session of the Montana legislature, I carried a bill in the Montana House on the Patriot Act. It was a bipartisan effort with Montana Sen. Jim Elliot. We could not outright ban state law enforcement from participating in activities or expending money to help federal agents enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that were in conflict with our state Constitution, so we passed a resolution (not law) telling Montana law enforcement that the legislature did not want them expending money to help federal law enforcement enforce certain provisions of the patriot act.
Why couldn't we ban that practice outright? Becuase the federal government gives local law enforcement all kinds of money for Meth problems, drunk driving, new equipment, and a whole host of things. The conditions attached to many of those "carrots" include a provision that the local law enforcement accepting that money will cooperate with federal agents.
If we were to write a law banning cooperation, that law would be audited by the federal agencies, and the state doing so would lose money it actually relies on to operate some basic functions of law enforcement.
That is how screwed up the system is. I know of only one way to stop that- look at your W-2 form. The amount going to the feds should be the amount going to the states. The amount going to the states should be the amount going to the feds. The tax system is set up backwards in my view. If that were to change, the states would have all the autonomy they need.
As it is, states will continue to be assimilated under a Federal "mother hen" and have less meaning and power as time goes on. It is just that simple.
I would suggest, that unless a new Supreme Court views the 10th Amendment more in keeping with the intent of the original framers, in 50 years, we won't need states except for administration of federal programs, laws, and regulations.
The other option is an amendment to the US Constitution.
I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but as a state legislator, I have had to face the reality of working within and indeed trying to change the system we have for the better.
-Rep. Rick Maedje(R)- Fortine, Montana Quoting: lowly legislator 91339
Constit uh er Cosnti er uh Costi well that old ass yellow piece of paper that is in that case thingie in DC. The constitu uh that thing will be ammended to guarantee the right to housing at taxpayers expenxe, job training for the urban disenfranchised, the right to free rides to 3 or more polling places for undocumented democrats/beaners...finally the right to get a disabiliity check for having the DTs from coming off of crack and/or meth and my favorite..the right to have a tummy tuck when those 8 $$$$ babies have skretched the ho's stomach and she don't wanna look too unsexy for the next babydaddy.....they have sold us for a whore, they have sown the wind....their whirlwind even now spooleth up.....uyea verily.....how qabout deliver the friggin mail and keep the borders secure....that's the main thing we need feds for....well 1/2 out of 2 ain't that bad..... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 257587
9/14/2007 1:15 PM | | Re: Wyoming Sheriff Thread is Bogus, Unfortunately | Quote |
This has got to stop. There is NO COURT RULING that provides County Sheriif's the authority to stop federal agents from enforcing federal laws or regulations.
I wish it were different, but it is not. The Printz case out of Montana dealt with the background checks on firearms purchases. Sheriff Printz claimed his Ravalli County Sheriff's office could not AFFORD to do the federally mandated background checks. THAT IS the case he took to court, claiming one thing and one thing only: The federal government should not be allowed to require any Sheriff to enforce a federal law UNLESS the federal government paid the local Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court agreed.
As such, it is settled law that the federal government may itself enforce its regulations or laws in any state, but it may not require the states to enforce that law UNLESS the federal government gives the state the money to do so. The state may agree not to take the money, but as an example, the DUI laws are attached to highway repair monies given the states. Virtually every state now has a 21 year old drinking age, .08 BAC, and a ban on open containers.
States did this not because they wanted to, but because of the "carrot and stick" relationship with the federal government.
The EPA, as another example, provides funds to willing states if those stakes take over "primacy" in enforcing EPA regulations. The state must use those federal funds to enforce federal regulations and they benefit marginally from some of the money which may be used for other things. Many states have taken up this "carrot and stick" offer.
The federal government has a choke chain on the states. The Sheriff's do not, nor do most the legislatures of the states.
That simply is reality.
The Supreme Court has not and I fear will not ever disturb this relationship. Too much of the system is reliant on the carrot and stick principle.
So, when you hear the frankly untrue story about Sherrif Dave in Wyoming "kicking out the Feds", it is patently untrue. Infact, there is not even a court ruling on that matter.
Worse yet, the judge in the case had to write a letter for the public explaining that the rumors were untrue, that the case never went to trial, was dismissed under a settlement agreement, and the Judge posted a notice that warns anyone who believes they can stop a federal agent from enforcing a law or regulation will be jailed- basically.
I wish it were different, but it is not.
I wish the local Sheriff could be the first line of defense for a state's particular Constitutional protections, many of which which are more precise and create more protections against overbearing government than the federal constitution does, but this just isn't the case under present law.
Frankly, there is roon in the courts for cases which can begin to set a line of legal authority in place that chips away at federal suprememcy issues, and there are lawyers and organizations doing just that- carefully and rather quietly.
Karen Bud-Fallen is one Wyoming Attorney doing just that with respect to land use issues and private property rights.
Montana passedx the first law in the nation outlawing its own state from selling any state owned lands to the feds except for Federal Constitutionally expressed purposes.
County Commissioner could enact a host of ordinances to throw sand in the gears of the feds, and yes local Sheriff's could work along with local officials to do the same.
Let me go another step further and offer some insight on how screwed up the state/federal relationship actually is.
In the 2005 session of the Montana legislature, I carried a bill in the Montana House on the Patriot Act. It was a bipartisan effort with Montana Sen. Jim Elliot. We could not outright ban state law enforcement from participating in activities or expending money to help federal agents enforce provisions of the Patriot Act that were in conflict with our state Constitution, so we passed a resolution (not law) telling Montana law enforcement that the legislature did not want them expending money to help federal law enforcement enforce certain provisions of the patriot act.
Why couldn't we ban that practice outright? Becuase the federal government gives local law enforcement all kinds of money for Meth problems, drunk driving, new equipment, and a whole host of things. The conditions attached to many of those "carrots" include a provision that the local law enforcement accepting that money will cooperate with federal agents.
If we were to write a law banning cooperation, that law would be audited by the federal agencies, and the state doing so would lose money it actually relies on to operate some basic functions of law enforcement.
That is how screwed up the system is. I know of only one way to stop that- look at your W-2 form. The amount going to the feds should be the amount going to the states. The amount going to the states should be the amount going to the feds. The tax system is set up backwards in my view. If that were to change, the states would have all the autonomy they need.
As it is, states will continue to be assimilated under a Federal "mother hen" and have less meaning and power as time goes on. It is just that simple.
I would suggest, that unless a new Supreme Court views the 10th Amendment more in keeping with the intent of the original framers, in 50 years, we won't need states except for administration of federal programs, laws, and regulations.
The other option is an amendment to the US Constitution.
I don't like being the bearer of bad news, but as a state legislator, I have had to face the reality of working within and indeed trying to change the system we have for the better.
-Rep. Rick Maedje(R)- Fortine, Montana Quoting: lowly legislator 91339
Constit uh er Cosnti er uh Costi well that old ass yellow piece of paper that is in that case thingie in DC. The constitu uh that thing will be ammended to guarantee the right to housing at taxpayers expenxe, job training for the urban disenfranchised, the right to free rides to 3 or more polling places for undocumented democrats/beaners...finally the right to get a disabiliity check for having the DTs from coming off of crack and/or meth and my favorite..the right to have a tummy tuck when those 8 $$$$ babies have skretched the ho's stomach and she don't wanna look too unsexy for the next babydaddy.....they have sold us for a whore, they have sown the wind....their whirlwind even now spooleth up.....uyea verily.....how qabout deliver the friggin mail and keep the borders secure....that's the main thing we need feds for....well 1/2 out of 2 ain't that bad..... |
| | Page 1, 2 | |
|
