> hope maybe? comments? i would love to believe we have some recourse.
>
>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=74121
>
>
> CODEX? HA! THROW THE FEDS OUT OF YOUR STATE NOW!
> Posted By: Esclarmonde <Send E-Mail>
> Date: Monday, 4 July 2005, 10:38 p.m.
> THE COURTS HAVE SPOKEN! "Any legislation including the Patriot Acts
> which attempts to compel State Officers to execute Federal Law is
> unconstitutional. Further, any federal investigational liberties
> can be forbidden by the States highest law enforcement officer.
> Finally, any attempts by a federal agency to coerce compliance to
> such liberties can be grounds for arrest of any of their agents who
> do not comply with the directions of that officer."
> THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION (COURT CASES) WAS REQUESTED BY A STATE
> CONGRESSMAN FROM A NORTHERN STATE. IT IS THE SAME BASIC INFORMATION
> SENT TO THE GROUP FIGHTING THE FEDS OVER THE WATER IN THE KLAMATH
> RESERVOIR SEVERAL YEARS AGO. IT WAS USED TO TELL THE FEDS TO LEAVE.
> THEY APPARENTLY WEREN'T HAPPY ABOUT IT, BUT THEY LEFT NONETHELESS.
> LINK TO THE KLAMATH DEBAUCLE:
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-
> bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=10183 THIS WOULD SEEM TO APPLY TO THE
> ENFORCEMENT OF THE PATRIOT ACTS, MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND ALL OTHER
> FEDERAL PROGRAMS/LAWS/ENACTMENTS. EVEN CODEX! STAND UP AND TELL THE
> FEDS TO GET OUT! THINK ABOUT IT! IS IT TIME? MAYBE YOU NEED TO SEND
> THIS TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNOR...? [A quote from the
> Supreme Court Case below: "[T]he 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."] Case Numbers, links and important 'snippets' are all
> below. Thanks to Adam Selene for his research and for recreating
> this for us in this most important time:
> ****************************************************************
> Attached as appendix A is a copy of one of the many newspaper
> reports citing the case law from the Federal District Court for
> Wyoming stating that the States top law enforcement officers
> (Sheriffs) there hold the authority to disallow Federal agents to
> operate in their counties. The Sovereign right and the top law
> enforcement officers of any of the other 49 Sovereign States, hold
> the same authority. This has never been challenged in any higher
> court, because no grounds will ever be found whereby a challenge by
> the Federal government can be made. One issue should be taken into
> account when using this case as precedent. In this case the State
> of Wyoming had specific wording in their State Constitution about
> who was the supreme law enforcement officer of the districts known
> as Counties, that of course being the Sheriff. In some states
> their State Constitution may appoint a different person, and it is
> necessary to identify who it is. Such a shift of authority to that
> person does not alleviate the Federal government from the
> requirement to obey them, should they use their authority. It also
> does nothing to change or negate any States standing as Sovereign
> in any manner. (Note: I would have quoted specific excerpts from
> the ruling I consider appropriate, but the Wyoming state law
> library database of Wyoming cases was offline for the Independence
> day weekend.
> The link is:
> http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/index.asp )
> Also attached as appendix B are excerpts from Printz ruling of
> Printz/Mack vs. US (BRADY BILL) Supreme Court of the United States,
> Case numbers 95-1503 and 95-1478, June 27, 1997. This case was
> filed by two Sheriffs, one from Wyoming and one from Montana, when
> Federal authorities tried to require Sovereign State employees
> (including County Sheriffs) to uphold federal legislation, under
> the Brady Bill. Through this challenge the Supremes ruled it
> unlawful and reminded the Federal government that previous rulings
> by the high court had previously forbidden this practice. The
> attached excerpts are most appropriate to this matter, because a
> concentrated program of awarding County Sheriffs either active or
> honorary U.S. Marshall positions is currently underway, in an
> attempt to make them subject to federal direction. This is clearly
> forbidden in the cited ruling excerpts. What this all boils down to
> is this: Any legislation including the Patriot Acts which attempts
> to compel State Officers to execute Federal Law is
> unconstitutional. Further, any federal investigational liberties
> can be forbidden by the States highest law enforcement officer.
> Finally, any attempts by a federal agency to coerce compliance to
> such liberties can be grounds for arrest of any of their agents who
> do not comply with the directions of that officer. Respectfully
> submitted, Adam Selene Freelance Legislative Researcher
> ***********************************************************
> Appendix A Sheriff boots Feds from his county By Phil Hamby [See
> note below.] 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. Copyright 1997 The Knoxville Journal ***********************
> ********************* Appendix B Excerpts with emphasis added
> from: U.S. Supreme Court Syllabus
> PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES
> certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth
> circuit No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996 Decided June 27, 1997
> The petitioners here object to being pressed into federal service,
> and contend that congressional action compelling state officers to
> execute federal laws is unconstitutional
We have held, however,
> that state leglislatures are not subject to federal direction. New
> York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). 5 Although the
> States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal
> Government, they retained "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,"
> The Federalist No. 39, at 245 (J. Madison). This is reflected
> throughout the Constitution's text, Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall.
> 71, 76 (1869); Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869)
Residual
> state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the
> Constitution's conferral upon Congress of not all governmental
> powers,but only discrete, enumerated ones, Art. I, §8, which
> implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment's assertion
> that [T]he 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. The Framers'
> experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them
> that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was
> both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. See The
> Federalist No. 15. Our citizens would have two political
> capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from
> incursion by the other...The Constitution thus contemplates that a
> State's government will represent and remain accountable to its own
> citizens. See New York, supra, at 168-169; United States v. Lopez,
> 514 U.S. 549, 576 -577 (1995) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Cf. Edgar
> v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 644 (1982) (the State has no
> legitimate interest in protecting nonresident[s]). This
> separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's
> structural protections of liberty
Just as the separation and
> independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government
> serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one
> branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the
> Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from
> either front." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)
The
> dissent perceives a simple answer in that portion of Article VI
> which requires that all executive and judicial Officers, both of
> the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath
> or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, arguing that by
> virtue of the Supremacy Clause this makes not only the
> Constitution, but every law enacted by Congress as well, binding
> on state officers, including laws requiring state officer
> enforcement
The Supremacy Clause, however, makes Law of the Land
> only Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
> [of the Constitution; so the Supremacy Clause merely brings us
> back to the question discussed earlier, whether laws conscripting
> state officers violate state sovereignty and are thus not in accord
> with the Constitution
"The Federal Government," we held, "may not
> compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory
> program New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 188 (1992)
We held in
> New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce
> a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot
> circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers
> directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives
> requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command
> the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to
> administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not
> whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of
> the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are
> fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual
> sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for
> the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered. Link to full
> Syllabus:
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-
> bin/getcase.pl?court=us&navby=case&vol=521&invol=898
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
Address Off-Topic messages to: [email protected]
OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
