Sheriff Threatens Feds With A SWAT Team

page: 2
133
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


yea, i wondered about that myself..seems a little misleading as the Sheriff doesn't tell anyone to "suck a fat one" anywhere in those vids..unless i missed it...nope..not there...




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And if this Sheriff is such a constitutional scholar then why did Hage sue under the 5th amendment when the Sheriff claims it's a 10th amendment violation?

I guess they violated Hage twice huh?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Come Clean]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
This man appears to be a paragon of Law Enforcement.

The more people who stand up to the Federal Government when they play their games the better. We still have a chance to fix the abuse, we just have to work our butts off.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by eNumbra]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Oh, for cryin' out loud! Stop whining about the vernacular and pay attention to the material of the discussion. The mods do not need to be fired.

BTW, I've read a few times before that the Sheriff of a county or district is actually the ultimate law enforcement official of that particular territory, and that the Sheriff can indeed inform feds or other outside forces to 'go suck a fat one' and be legally justified in doing so.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
It makes me so happy watching the libs come unglued.

REAGAN BUSH BUUUUUUSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

hahahahah

Hey guess what, I don't care if this happened on Eisenhower's watch, the point is that the good sheriff threatened the federal criminals with guns and they backed down.

Its a great moment in American history that needs to be remembered, recalled, and rejoiced.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Key points
the sherrif
and the JURY
are the holders of the power
but this is not generally known
It should be stated as loudly,
and in as an attention getting fashion
as possible...

That looks like the way to stiffle the feds.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
This sheriff is one of the few that are truly aware of how our federal government is trying to overstep their boundaries by dictating state law and the Constitution. S + F



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


you mad bro?
...I forgot censorship should start at a website that promotes freedom and liberty first!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't care if this happened on Eisenhower's watch, the point is that the good sheriff threatened the federal criminals with guns and they backed down.


Then you're missing the point altogether. The intent was to somehow suggest the current administration is trying to take this man's land. I have no problem with fighting the government. I have a problem with misrepresentation of the facts. First of all, this has been going on for almost two decades. Second of all, the government lost. That's democracy in action but you guys are trying to turn it into democracy has failed. Third of all, this case has been settled over two years ago. Why is it relevent now unless the intent was to blame the current administration.

The guy won against the government. And I highly doubt that sheriff would have taken up arms against the Feds. He might but no way would his deputies take up arms. He was just blowing smoke.



[edit on 30-7-2010 by Come Clean]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
Key points
the sherrif
and the JURY
are the holders of the power
but this is not generally known
It should be stated as loudly,
and in as an attention getting fashion
as possible...

That looks like the way to stiffle the feds.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]


Do you guys actually think that sheriff would take up arms against federal law enforcement? He'd rather risk a murder beef than sue them in court?

Are you kidding me?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It makes me so happy watching the libs come unglued.

REAGAN BUSH BUUUUUUSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

hahahahah

Hey guess what, I don't care if this happened on Eisenhower's watch, the point is that the good sheriff threatened the federal criminals with guns and they backed down.

Its a great moment in American history that needs to be remembered, recalled, and rejoiced.




So why don't you write a thread about the Black Panthers taking up arms against the feds. Do you consider that a great moment in American History? What about McVeigh, didn't he take up arms against the Feds? How about the guy who flew his plane into a Texas federal building? Does he not deserve this high honor also?

Threatening to kill someone over cows is not an honor. It's a dishonor.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Wow just wow. I want this guy to run for president. I would vote for him. It feels good that he stood up for the little people.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 
Yeah I must admit I was waiting for him to say it too.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


The good sheriff shut those criminals down cold.

The lesson is entirely relevant no matter who was in office.

The president isn't micro-managing the BLM or the US Forestry Service.

This is a criminal federal government violating the US Constitution and getting called on their criminal behavior by someone with the firepower to back it up.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Bravo! Look what one guy in the office of Sheriff who understands the constitution can do! This is what the tea parties and everyone who is fed up should concentrate on doing; getting Sheriffs like this elected!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
This was in 91'?

IMO things would be quite different now-a-days.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


And if this Sheriff is such a constitutional scholar then why did Hage sue under the 5th amendment when the Sheriff claims it's a 10th amendment violation?

I guess they violated Hage twice huh?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Come Clean]

Part of the last clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution(underline added for emphasis):

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The court was ruling on the case, not the Sheriff.

The Sheriff was acting on the State's behalf via the US Constitution's Tenth Amendment, which is why Sheriff DeMeo mentions "Federalism."

The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution :

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.
The land was owned by the state of Nevada, but only managed by the Federal Government. This was why the Sheriff also mentions "State Sovereignty."

I use this source for making sure I put in the real text instead of a paraphrased text when posting about the US Constitution.

Therefore to answer your question: Hage's issue at court was a clear Fifth Amendment violation case. Sheriff DeMeo has nothing to do with that and was basically deriving his authority from the Tenth Amendment.

I'm no lawyer nor an expert, but I hope that clears it up for you as I can see how it can be a little confusing.


edit: Man, I proof read and still made some mistakes that I caught just after posting...

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Zaxxon]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyr Sog
This was in 91'?

IMO things would be quite different now-a-days.
The cattle was taken in 1991 by the BLM. Sheriff DeMeo took office in 2003, and up until "recently" (which apparently was 2009 I believe) the BLM has still tried to seize the Hage Estate's owned water rights.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
This is an example of why you should make an informed vote when
casting your ballot for your local Sheriff. Your local Sheriff has
strong legal jurisdiction in his county, and you want to elect a Sheriff
who isn't afraid to wield this power if need be, to protect his
constituency from violations of the Constitution by the Feds.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
There was a time in the West when the Sheriff was one of the better gunfighters in the parts he ranged.

Out in the desert, things change. Those who are accustomed to desert fighting have a distinct advantage.

I mean, it wouldn't be like the ATF was going after the Branch Davidians in Waco. That would be too easy for the Feds. No, things change. I think the Feds would be thinking twice about who they wanted to pick a fight with.





Utah Invokes Eminent Domain Against the Federal Government
abovethelaw.com ^ | 29 Mar 2010 at 3:41 PM | ELIE MYSTAL

www.freerepublic.com...

Posted on Monday, March 29, 2010 8:05:19 PM by JerseyHighlander

Utah Invokes Eminent Domain Against the Federal Government By ELIE MYSTAL

This is the kind of story that sounds unbelievable — until you realize that it’s dealing with the people who run Utah. The WSJ Law Blog reports:

Utah Governor Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government’s most valuable parcels. A state is invoking the Takings Clause against the federal government? This reminds me of the time I came home and my dog told me to get off the couch. Sure, I was surprised that my dog was (a) talking and (b) ordering me off my own property. And so I resolved, right then and there, to never drop acid again.

Unfortunately, I don’t know what the hell Utah lawmakers are smoking …

I’m going to put some kind of latex protection around my brain before I get down into the muck and deal with Utah’s argument. I suggest you do the same. The Salt Lake Tribune reports:





new topics

top topics



 
133
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join