The Sheriff Who Sold His County

The last vestiges of the once free republics are now being systematically dismantled across the USA. The federalization, corporatization, and dissolution of the County Sheriffs offices across the country, that last line of local protection against federal and state tyranny for the people is now being eradicated. The story below is typical of what is happening across the country. Sadly the people in thier ignorance will not stop this it seems. Some excerpts below but you need to read the whole article at the link to get the full impact of what is happening:

In the Great Salt Lake Valley, a once free land settled between the rugged Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountain ranges, the county’s last firewall of protection from outside influence has been extinguished...

This is the story of what has become of Salt Lake County, and the private militant corporation that has become its new police department. And to this you should pay heed, for this story is happening across the country, and may have already consumed your own county’s last hope, your elected Sheriff....

First, understand that the County Sheriff is given the true lawful power of the people as an elected political office, and not a partisan appointment like all of the law enforcement officials beneath him. This political office is (or was) the protectorate of the people within each county; acting as the law of the land and the only instrumentality that has the real power to thwart the encroachments of the Federal government – the power to say NO!...

The good Sheriff actually campaigned on and was voted into this honorable office toting the success of the newly formed Unified Police Department – the “unification” of the sheriff, municipal, and unincorporated police departments within Salt Lake County into one corporately structured private police force – an act of treason and an assault on everything remotely constitutional...

The people have no idea what this man has done…

As of January 1, 2010, the day that Salt Lake County became a police state, the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Department was officially dissolved. In its place was created a brand new corporation, which is now described as “…responsible for all police operations”. This private company is called the “Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake”, or the “Unified Police Department” for short...

Manta.com lists this “private company” here: (www.manta.com...)...

To add to the treasonous nature of this takeover of Salt Lake County, this elected Sheriff was then appointed as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Unified Police Department by the County Council. To clarify, the elected Sheriff Jim Winder was appointed by the elected County Council to be the CEO of the private company called “Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake”, which is in charge of all law enforcement within the County of Salt Lake.

And it gets worse… way worse!...

The Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office will be dissolved and will be replaced with a new metro police department...

“It’s happened, today we are formalizing what has really been a several year initiative to create a consolidated police entity that is managed by municipal (corporation) mayors,” ...

Instead of being run by a chief or the sheriff, the metro police force will be controlled by a board made up of the mayors of the participating municipalities (corporations). The sheriff will act as chief executive on that board.

(Source Link: www.fox13now.com...)...

What more could the leaders of organized crime (the mayors) ask for than a private police force that they control and use to take the people’s wealth and property?...

Read the whole thing here: realitybloger.wordpress.com...

It is frankly shocking to see this transformation of America in my life time to a police state. Spread the word, educate educate educate!

I am just waiting for news that the renraku arcology is looked down and the red samurai are retreating.. paging president dunkelhazen.....

FOr those that do not know this is a reference to a book series and role playing game known as shadowrun.

It's shocking how much shadowrun is getting right as the years go by. Who knew that a sci fi book series would be the best preparation and roadmap for the future?

Do you have any input into voter's opposition to the unification?

The article says that "people have no idea what the man has done," but that doesn't mean the people aren't in favor of it.

Originally posted by jam321
Do you have any input into voter's opposition to the unification?

The article says that "people have no idea what the man has done," but that doesn't mean the people aren't in favor of it.

The article says he campaigned on the idea and was voted in. However I wonder if the people really understood that he would then help dissolve the office he was elected to and create an illegal entity claiming police powers.

and I'll bet this new Police Force reports
directly to Homeland Security.

Man were these people hoodwinked.

One county at a time. The invasion continues.

reply to post by hawkiye

create an illegal entity claiming police powers.

Wouldn't the city, county, state and federal laws determine legality of such an organization?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of this. Devil advocate I guess.

Furthermore, wouldn't these cops still have to pass the same requirements to be a LEO as required by State law?

Many questions, hopefully someone in the area can chime in.

reply to post by hawkiye


What, you don't think the police forces should be privatized? What are you, some sort of socialist?

It gets much worse folks if you read further on the link look how they are financing this:

Perhaps the worst aspect of Salt Lake County’s plight is that the Unified Police Department actually had the nerve to outsource this crime to another state!

The “NBS” website at (nbsgov.com) – which is the out of state, private, non-governmental company handling Salt Lake County’s SLVLESA – states that:

Special Financing Districts (“SFD’s”) include a wide variety of assessment-based, special tax, and other types of parcel charges such as:

* Assessment Districts
* Business Improvement Districts (BID)
* Community Facilities Districts (CFD)
* Connection Fee Financing
* Fire and Other Special Purpose Taxes
* Local Improvement Districts (LID)
* Maintenance Districts
* Miscellaneous Charges
* Parcel Loans
* Special Tax Districts

Exerpted from a “William Blair & Company” brochure entitled “Special Tax District Financing – A Guide to Funding Infrastructure Through Land-Secured Bonds”, this Chicago company might give us some insight as to what is actually happening in districts across the country like the SLVLESA:

This article sets out the basic concepts underlying land-secured municipal finance and how it can be used effectively by municipalities, home builders, and developers.

Land-secured bonds are used to finance the basic public infrastructure required for both new development and existing communities. Most often, these bonds are issued through-or for the benefit of-special tax districts. The bonds generally are non-rated and exempt from federal income taxes…

Now, I want you to pay special attention to this next part. For this above all else reveals the true nature of your private, corporate municipal “government”. And it proves without a doubt that you, the people, are not the owner of your land, your home, or your property.

The brochure continues:

Owners of properties that benefit from the bond-funded infrastructure agree to a lien on their homes (or commercial property) that is paid off over time through an annual special tax or assessment. That tax or assessment is used to pay debt service on the bonds, which are secured further by the underlying taxed or assessed property as collateral. The special tax or assessment constitutes a senior lien on the property, meaning it is superior to private liens such as construction or mortgage loans.

Land-secured bonds are used to finance many types of public infrastructure. For example, for transportation, bond proceeds can fund streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, highway interchanges, public parking, public landscaping, and street lights. For utilities and related infrastructure, the bonds can fund water supply, storage, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; and storm drain systems. For economic development, the bonds can finance public infrastructure associated with shopping centers, business parks, and industrial parks. In addition, land-secured municipal bonds can fund flood control, recreational facilities, parks, and open space. What constitutes an eligible project is subject to specific state statutes, but in many locales the possibilities are expansive.

In short, land-secured bond financing can be used to fund the cost of public infrastructure for almost every kind of real estate development: existing urban and suburban neighborhoods, new master-planned communities, local and regional commercial districts, retail malls, big-box commercial centers, office and business parks, industrial complexes, redevelopment project areas, affordable-housing projects, and military bases being converted to civilian use.

In various states, a voter referendum is required to raise property taxes. This makes it difficult for local governments to cost-effectively finance new projects and existing infrastructure upgrades when they are needed… Consequently, a cash-flow mismatch exists between the up-front costs of public projects and generation of tax revenue. To fill this gap, land-secured bond financing was created so governments can fund infrastructure directly and developers can fund the public-use components of new neighborhoods before the improvements are conveyed to municipalities.

In other words… these bonds are created to bypass the lawful voting procedure that would otherwise be required of the people to raise property taxes. This is literally “taxation without representation”.

It continues:

Land-secured bonds generally are not rated by the rating agencies because they are considered riskier than other municipal bonds and are unlikely to receive investment-grade ratings. As home-builders have come to understand, however, as long as all goes according to plan, the risks lessen over time. Risks are highest as development begins and the project is still dirt’ risk then declines as the project reaches its full potential, builds out, and establishes a diversified tax base with a record of special tax or assessment payments. The annual tax or assessment levy is generally part of the owner’s property tax bill so payment can be routine.

The creative use of land-secured municipal financing through special tax and special assessment districts offers an opportunity for home-builders and real estate developers to partner with local governments to bring new development to fruition.

(Source Link: www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb…/WilliamBlair-SpecialTaxDistrictFinancing.pdf)

I am guessing that this answers the question as to why cities and counties across the country are building new housing, strip-malls, mega shopping centers, and business complexes all over the place in “planned communities”, while empty businesses and homes stockpile in the rest of the cities and counties as banks continue their siege of foreclosures on the clueless people.

The more buildings government builds, the more taxation can be brought into the government Special Financing District!

realitybloger.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by hawkiye

 

What, you don't think the police forces should be privatized? What are you, some sort of socialist?

Yeah I am for free market privatization which means I can opt out of the services if I do not want them and hire a competing firm or take my chances. However this is forcing the services of a private corporation on the people so it is in fact socialism/fascism.

reply to post by hawkiye


Ah yes.. more Sovereign citizen paranoid, uninformed ignorant rant about corporations and law enforcement. Just ONCE I wish these people would actually read the Constitution and understand how it works, as oposed to their drama filled rants on how they think it should work.

I always find it funny when paranoid free sovereign citizens go on a rant about how evil the government is, how they ignore the law, no one is held responsible, and demand a return to the Consititution while in the very same breath ignore the very document they demand be restored.

Innocent until proven guilty
Due Process
Right to face their accusers
Right against self incrimination

How exactly are they going to get around the issue with colored people? I mean they only count a 3/5 of a person if we go by their plain textr reading of the Constitution.

What Salt Lake County did was form a Metro Unit (think Las Vegas). The communities within the county pooled their resources.

If the people of the county are ok with this, why arent the people who dont even live in the county? Afterall, it was changed wiuth the conset of the people in the county.

Or are sovereign citizens now of the mindset that those people who exercise their right to vote and be heard should be punished as well in addition to the Government?

This is nothing but a load of BS.

reply to post by Xcathdra

How exactly are they going to get around the issue with colored people? I mean they only count a 3/5 of a person if we go by their plain textr reading of the Constitution.

I swore to myself that I would wait and post in reply to something you posted, when I found something that I agreed with, since you do say things I agree with. However, timing as it is, I cannot refrain from correcting this erroneous assertion of yours. Particularly since you have lamented that so few read and understand the Constitution.

The plain reading of the text of the Constitution, in regards to the "three fifths" Clause does not in anyway shape or form mention "colored people", and does not in any way shape or form point to any specific race of people outside of Indians not taxed.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article I, Section 2; Constitution for the United States of America

A plain reading of this text shows that your assertion of "colored people" being only "three fifths" of a person is construed from what would be implied, but a simple plain reading of the text, particularly after a plain reading of the text of the 13th Amendment, leaves us wondering whom "all other Person's" are. Your assertion is not so plainly written in the Constitution.

reply to post by jam321


Yes they are still held to the same standards as all other LEAs and LEOs. They still must meet the same training requirements, they must still pass the same back ground checks and everything else. They must also be commissioned (or deputized) by the state.

Many police departments across the country are incorporated. It helps to reduce risk in an incident where an officer is found liable. It stops one bad officer from bankrupting the department. The new "Metro" department is not a privately held company. They are a government onwed incorporation that must answer to the people. Just like any city is "incorporated" but must still answer to the people.

This is paranoid ranting from someone that does not understand how LE works. Now if the county hired XE and said that was the new police force we would need to worry.

reply to post by Xcathdra

yes.. more Sovereign citizen paranoid, uninformed ignorant rant about corporations and law enforcement. Just ONCE I wish these people would actually read the Constitution and understand how it works, as oposed to their drama filled rants on how they think it should work.

Hmmm maybe you could define "sovereign citizen" so we know what you are talking about? Because Sovereign and Citizen are a contradiction in terms. You are either one or the other, a sovereign or a citizen subject to some other sovereign.

always find it funny when paranoid free sovereign citizens go on a rant about how evil the government is, how they ignore the law, no one is held responsible, and demand a return to the Consititution while in the very same breath ignore the very document they demand be restored.

Innocent until proven guilty
Due Process
Right to face their accusers
Right against self incrimination

Perhaps you could tell us where these things are being ignored and how they are germane to the discussion?

How exactly are they going to get around the issue with colored people? I mean they only count a 3/5 of a person if we go by their plain textr reading of the Constitution.

I think JPZ dealt with your error in what the constitution actually says. However I am confused are you for or against the the constitution since this seems to be jab at it?

What Salt Lake County did was form a Metro Unit (think Las Vegas). The communities within the county pooled their resources.

What the people of Salt Lake county did was elect a man to the office of Sheriff who then proceeded to dissolve the office he was just elected to and have himself appointed as an unelected CEO of a new private corporate police force. It is not clear if the people understood this is what would happen if they elected him to Sheriff.

If the people of the county are ok with this, why arent the people who dont even live in the county? Afterall, it was changed wiuth the conset of the people in the county.

Because the county Sheriff is an important check against government tyranny both state and federal as neither the state nor the federal government have authority over the county sheriff as the Supreme court confirmed in Sheriff Macks land mark case. And the Sheriff is the only duly elected by the people law enforcement officer in the country accountable to the people through the election process, all others are appointed or hired. Doing away with the county sheriffs office eliminates this protection and gives the people no recourse from overbearing government bureaucracies like this one created.

The people of Salt Lake County who voted against this Sheriff are now under forced fascism and have no recourse. And even those who voted for him likely do not understand what they did. And those not of the county are concerned it could happen in their county.

reply to post by MikeNice81

They are a government onwed incorporation that must answer to the people. Just like any city is "incorporated" but must still answer to the people.

Unified Police Department Of Greater Salt Lake in Salt Lake City, UT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY categorized under Police Departments

www.manta.com...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
[I swore to myself that I would wait and post in reply to something you posted, when I found something that I agreed with, since you do say things I agree with.

Its all good, we will agree on some topics, and will not agree on others.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
However, timing as it is, I cannot refrain from correcting this erroneous assertion of yours. Particularly since you have lamented that so few read and understand the Constitution.

The plain reading of the text of the Constitution, in regards to the "three fifths" Clause does not in anyway shape or form mention "colored people", and does not in any way shape or form point to any specific race of people outside of Indians not taxed.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article I, Section 2; Constitution for the United States of America

The assertion the 3/5 clause does not refer to black or people of color is rather naieve, especially the manner in which it is written. It specifically refers to white people and Indians. Since at this time the predominant number of "slaves" or indentured servants are comprised of black people. While there were white people who were counted among the slave trade, it doesnt change the fact or intent of who its directed at.

This comprmise goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation, and from the outset caused issues between the North and South. People from the North only wanted to count free persons, whereas the South wanted free persons and slaves because of the apportionment of tax money etc, as you ponited out.

The Three-Fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A plain reading of this text shows that your assertion of "colored people" being only "three fifths" of a person is construed from what would be implied, but a simple plain reading of the text, particularly after a plain reading of the text of the 13th Amendment, leaves us wondering whom "all other Person's" are. Your assertion is not so plainly written in the Constitution.

The answer to your question is in the text itself. It specifically talks about free persons and indians. If you remove Free persons, which the majority at the time was White, and Indians, you are left with?

Slaves, which at the time was predominately Black.

The assertion is made by taking into account the times it was written in, which was during the slave trade. This issue was a problem from the outset and contnued on up to the Civil War (and yes I know, the civil war was fought over states rights, however even then slavery was still part of that topic).


Coming back around to topic the reason I brought it up is how some people argue the Government is violating the Constitution / Laws, while at the very same time that group ignores part of the Consitution they dont care for. They demand the system be changed into something they want, while arguing the Government is illegal because of their actions. They fail to take into account the people who are satisfied with the current setup of Government who would prefer to make changes through the ballot box instead of violence or acts of vigilantism (not all sovereigns do this, but there are documented cases.

I just find it hypocritical that a group who claims the Government does not represent the people are doing the exact same thing they yell at the Government about. They feel they are not subject to certain laws, while at the same time attempting to force their interpretation onto others who dont share their viewpoints.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Since at this time the predominant number of "slaves" or indentured servants are comprised of black people. While there were white people who were counted among the slave trade, it doesnt change the fact or intent of who its directed at.

Not quite...

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.
I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.

www.revisionisthistory.org...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Ah yes.. more Sovereign citizen paranoid, uninformed ignorant rant about corporations and law enforcement. Just ONCE I wish these people would actually read the Constitution and understand how it works, as oposed to their drama filled rants on how they think it should work.

They are creating these corporations so they can borrow money on the Bond market. Then the board members and local crooks can shove their pockets with the millions they borrow using this Corporation.

This is exactly how all the airports across America were made. Make them their own entity then borrow hundreds of millions and all the money goes only into a few peoples pockets. Problem with doing this with a police force is they are solely there to make lots of money quick.

Will they copy Pennsylvania and create privately owned jails....then bribe judges to throw every kid that passes thru the court into the jails to lots of people make money? even if the kids were innocent? Happened in Pennsylvania.

What we are witnessing is Federally dictated operations to attempt to show growth in America, get money into crooks pockets who oversee us...and make America a Police State.

That 1 Sheriff was cheaper to the tax payers. Watch how much the new Corporate Police Department starts borrowing on the bond market.....they are going to have to start doing evil things to pay the debt.

Very evil things indeed.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Hmmm maybe you could define "sovereign citizen" so we know what you are talking about? Because Sovereign and Citizen are a contradiction in terms. You are either one or the other, a sovereign or a citizen subject to some other sovereign.

The article linked in the OP uses catch phrases and arguments that is the Sovereign Citizen movement. Sovereign citizens refuse to acknowledge the validity of the Federal Government and its laws as well as laws passed by municipalities. They view city goverment as a "corporation" and view Law Enforcement as "for profit entities serving said corporation". The article talks about the "elected Sheriff" selling the county, while going on about it being an elected position. Soveriegn Citizens only recognize the authority of the Sheriff because it is an elected position while viewing any and all other law enforcement as illegitmate.

always find it funny when paranoid free sovereign citizens go on a rant about how evil the government is, how they ignore the law, no one is held responsible, and demand a return to the Consititution while in the very same breath ignore the very document they demand be restored.

Innocent until proven guilty
Due Process
Right to face their accusers
Right against self incrimination

Perhaps you could tell us where these things are being ignored and how they are germane to the discussion?

It goes to the cruxt of the argument being made in the article. A group of people are upset because they percieve the actions of the Sheriff and County Commission as being illegal and no representative of the people. They refer to the consolidation as a "brand new corporation". They level these accusations, and in some cicrcles discuss violence towards those same entities. The very same people however refuse to abide by the very same document they say is being ignored by the Government.

Instead of making changes by participating in the system, they prefer to seperate themselves from it and form their own. They demand people respect that viewpoint while at the same time they do not respect the system in place. 2 Polic eOfficers pulled a vehicle over on the highway in Ohio or Indiana (ill try to find the article) for a traffic violation. The driver of the vehicle refused to produce his drivers license when the officer asked for it.

What ensued was a violent encounter where both officers were shot and killed. Both people in the vehicle, father and son, were members of a sovereign citizen group who did not recognizae the authority of the officers nor the government.

As stated, for a group of people who demand laws and the Constitution be followed, they nevr extended that courtesy to the 2 officers who were gunned down.

Originally posted by hawkiye
I think JPZ dealt with your error in what the constitution actually says. However I am confused are you for or against the the constitution since this seems to be jab at it?

Actually its not an error. The 3/5 clause was a compromise between the North and South and dealt specifically with slavery and how those people are to be counted. It was a hotbutton issue because it had direct ramifications on apportionment of taxes and representation in the new government. Removing slaves from the equation gave the North a population advantage. Keeping slaves and counting them gave the South a population advantage.

I posted that info in my response to JPZ.

I am for the Constitution, but not a plain text reading of it. The Consititution was designed to be a living document, able to change with the times and accepted social standards. Without that ability, we never would have made it this far (and the Civil War bears that out).

Originally posted by hawkiye
What the people of Salt Lake county did was elect a man to the office of Sheriff who then proceeded to dissolve the office he was just elected to and have himself appointed as an unelected CEO of a new private corporate police force. It is not clear if the people understood this is what would happen if they elected him to Sheriff.

Also, I think people need to research what the requirement is for the Sheriff. A Sheriff is NOT required to have a road patrol. The only requirements for a Sheriff is to maintain the jail and execute civil process.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Because the county Sheriff is an important check against government tyranny both state and federal as neither the state nor the federal government have authority over the county sheriff as the Supreme court confirmed in Sheriff Macks land mark case. And the Sheriff is the only duly elected by the people law enforcement officer in the country accountable to the people through the election process, all others are appointed or hired. Doing away with the county sheriffs office eliminates this protection and gives the people no recourse from overbearing government bureaucracies like this one created.

Where do you get lost representation or no ability for redress of greivances? The people still vote for the city officals who represent them, including the Mayor. If they had a seperate sheriffs office, and the people dont like the job he is doing, they vote him out of office and replace him. The same holds true for this style as well.

Originally posted by hawkiye
The people of Salt Lake County who voted against this Sheriff are now under forced fascism and have no recourse. And even those who voted for him likely do not understand what they did. And those not of the county are concerned it could happen in their county.

As I stated before, parnoid fearmongering BS and nothing more.

If people are going to cite Sheriff Mack as an example, they I respectfully suggest you actually read the entire incident from front to back instead of just assuming. The court case stems directly from the Brady Bill and some of its provisions.

The challenge by the Sheriff was the Federal Government requiring background checks on people who purchase fire arms. The Federal Government put a system in place that places the administration and execution of said plan into the realm of the County Sheriffs. Sheriff Mack argued that the fEderal Government had no authority to force local police to enforce Federal Law.

The "win" in this case was the Supreme Court essentially agreeing with the Sheriff and their argument. However, the effect was negligable and only dealt with background checks. At no point was the authority of the Sheriff ever challenged, and at no point did the court rule that a Sheriff could refuse / ignore FEderal Laws.

There is no correlation between Sheriff Macks case and what is occuring in Salt Lake County. They are 2 completely seperate issues and one does not affect the other.

Also, the court case for Sheriff Mack was in 1997, and since then the courts have upheld what was the dissenting opinion in that case - The Federal Government can regulate the sale of firearms using the Commerce Claus as well as the Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution. Current Federal Legislation in place allows and requires background checks on people who want to purchase a firearm, and states are required to comply with that law.

What occured since 1997 is the advances in technology as well as the consolidation of records. If you want to purchase a weapon, there is now a system in place to check the backgrounds in a speedy manner. Also when people have their names ran through local law enforcement dispatch it does the following:

Check the name for local warrants (criminal or civil)
Checks the State system for warrants
Checks the Federal system for warrants.

All at the same time.

Now, to bring it back on topic, none of what the article is talking about is valid at all. The position of the County Sheriff has absolutely nothing to do with Federal Law or the US Constitution. Law enforcement at the State / Local level is created and validated by the State Constitution as well as the municipality level should they decide to from a police force (which again, is specified by the State Constitution.

The OP article argument against what the Sheriff has done, and the rant about the Federal Government are not even in the same galaxy. Since law enforcement inside States is established through the State Constitution, it is subject to change by the State Legislature, which means the legislature could remove the authority of the Sheriff if they so choose.

This is why I have issues with the Soverign Citizen crap. They latch on to a poerceived problem, and then go off the deep end start blaming the Federal Government, when in this case it has nothing to do with the Federal Government at all.

People in the US have dual citizenship. They are a citizen of the United States, where they are represented by the FEderal Government, and they are citizens of the State they reside in, being represented by the State and local government.

If people are going to debate, please do some research and learn about it first.

reply to post by hawkiye


I made it a point to show that Blacks were not the only people involved in the slave trade. What I did point out that the predominant numbers of slaves were in fact black. This is not in dispute, and is the reason for the 3/5 compromise.

When it specifically uses terms like Free Persons, Indians - They are being specific.
When it uses a term like "all other persons" - They are saying any person except for Free Persons and Indians.

Again, the predominate group was black during that time period. Ignoring it doesnt change the concept of the clause at all. Also, as you and a few others argue, the simple fact we have a Constitutional Amendment that specifically ends slavery shows that the 3/5 clause was directed at slaves (predominately black at the time).

If the 3/5 clause was not intended to be used against slaves (black people), then there never would have been a need for a constitutional amendment.

reply to post by Pervius


First off taking an example from one side of the country, namely the judge, and trying to apply it to all judges in the country, does not fly.

Second, I would not use a judge as an example in this case, since Law Enforcement does not fall under the Judicial.

Please show me where its illegal to operate a private jail?

As I said, the Sheriff is not mandated to have a Sheriffs Patrol. The only requirement of a Sheriff is to maintain a jail as he sees fit and within the established FEderal and State Laws through Supreme Court rulings, and to execute civil process.

There are articles on the OP topic that shows they county will save money by merging all agencies into one (with the exception of one small village who opted to maintain there police department and keep it seperate.

Again, people need to stop trying to use the Federal Constitution to review what local law enforcement does. You MUST look at the State Constitutions for your information and answers.

Why dont people do this? Why go directly for the Federal Constitution? Again for a group of people who accuse the FEderal Government of ignoring the Constitution, these people do the exact same thing, except they yell at the Feds while they ignore their own State Constitution.

Deny Ignorance, Do not embrace it.

read, research, study, learn, obtain knowledge.